Hello Ed I don't think anyone here has said or implied that "all companies and the people working for them, even large multinational megabuck outfits, are inherently evil, nor all industrial processes". If they had I'd have argued with them, that would be thoroughly stupid. To discuss the role and position of corporations in society and the economy as is often done here is a different matter. That it's found wanting does not automatically damn all corporations. Generalisations may be odious but if you don't generalise you can't do patterns, and then you can't understand anything. It's obvious that you have to remain fully aware of the difference between the general and the particular.
>Hi again, Keith: > >Yes, I agree, it's not what anyone needs to have a private concern >supplying the drinking water to those who can afford to pay (that's why >the bit in brackets, below....and I expect you're right on the last >bit, for the most part. > >Sometimes it pays to know, though, that not all companies and the >people working for them, even large multinational megabuck outfits, are >inherently evil, nor are all industrial processes, and sometimes >there's a good case to be made. If that's the situation, then I don't >think you can fault anyone for providing or taking training to present >their case, anticipate reaction, plan for it, prevent it from >occurring, etc. (Not to say you're wrong about the particular courses >and intent of this particular group, but speaking more generally) Nobody claimed that either. Seems to me you're getting a bit distracted from the point of all this. Of course there's nothing wrong with executives learning corporate communications skills. But there's a LOT wrong with what HCRA teaches them, and why. And it's rather easy to tell the difference. Similarly if a bit of corporateering spin gets debunked, there's hardly a need to go on and on about how the other "side" also does it. We know that. Politicians do it, religions do it, everyone does it to some extent. What's it got to do with <PM2.5? For that matter, where's the even remotely comparable amount of enviro-spin over <PM2.5 and clean air issues? Club Sierra's diesel-bashing? Don't make me laugh. >One side spins, the other side weaves, and the public gets to try on >the clothes...the more aware people are, as you say, of what all goes >into the forming of "opinion", the better off we are. Again I'll take issue with your apparent positioning of the two "sides" as those of a coin, with equal weight and value. You're comparing a shark to a guppy. Follow the money - don't even bother, just look at the results in the other post in this thread, from Brian (there's a whole bunch of them in the archives, just like that). Do you think the "enviroids" (language!) ever achieve results like that, or on anything like such a scale? Compared with the Wise Use movement they're pathetic, and Wise Use is just the tip of very large iceberg. Controlling enviro-spin is a minor problem, but this is a very major problem: "The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy. (Alex Carey) If - IF - that could be controlled, at this late stage, most of the enviro-spin would fade away anyway, a lot of it's just a reaction to being so heavily outgunned. One thing Ed, please note, you've just said you're "green", I've quite often rejected that label, so please don't accuse me of defending them - I regularly attack them. >Is "it" true, legitimate? Spin? Outright BS? Well, the more we pay >attention, and get ourselves equipped to discern, the more we might be >able to sift out the grains of truth and make better decisions for >ourselves and future generations. Indeed. Case by case. Keith >Edward Beggs > > > >On Monday, April 12, 2004, at 09:18 PM, Keith Addison wrote: > > >> Others sound dangerous, but might very well be virtually harmless (at > >> least on a strictly technical/scientific basis!) > >> > >> e.g. "New dihydrogen monoxide plant, owned by Monsanto, to open > >> immediately next to residential area!!" > >> > >> http://www.snopes.com/toxins/dhmo.htm > > > > I know what you're saying, but in fact the last thing anybody needs > > is for Monsanto or Bechtel or whatever to get involved with water > > supplies in their neighbourhood. > > > >> It ain't easy being green, nor searching for "the truth"! > > > > I think you make a mistake though by implying here and in your > > previous post that it's six of one and half a dozen of the other, or > > even less greenwashing ("That's different from greenwashing, which > > does occur, of course!"). They don't even begin to compare. Follow > > the money for the truth of that. > > > > Best > > > > Keith ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
