Yeah, I figured that was probably factually wrong, but the image of a Green (who might also be a PETA member) as dogcatcher was too irresistible.
Anyway, it’s the slogan’s use of “kill” that invites my request for clarification, though by now luci has tripped the light indignant so much his hands are probably too sweaty to work the keyboard and mouse. There have been people who, when they said “kill” in a slogan, meant it quite literally, with Pol Pot being in there somewhere. If the intent is a non-literal “replace” or “render obsolete” or “discourage” or whatever, why is it disingenuous to ask for a confirmation and example of how this might take place and (incidentally) what the sloganeer thinks a “consumer” is in the first place?
Well, there mnight have been some Bizarro-world version of respect in there, but no answer per se to a fairly simple question: “what does ‘kill the consumer economy’ mean?”
Dare I ask what THAT means? Did you think I was taking you on to impress my buddies or something? And what “points”? Where’s the scoreboard? What the fuck are you talking about?
Oops, you got me on that one. BTW: Where do they actually elect dogcatchers?
Bryan Ekers, as far as PETA is concerned, they are not well supported in the green community. They are kind of like the loud obnoxious little brother that continually embarrasses himself and the rest of the family. I think most greens wish they would go away.
One might also ask Grover Norquist why he felt the terms “starve” and “drown” were necessary wrt government (an institution that is staffed by, and on behalf of human beings, by the way). Or at least why they were not reminiscent of Pol Pot.
Well, I had to do a Google since I don’t know who Grover Nordquist is, but in any event his “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub” (assuming this is what you are referring to) sounds more like an attempt at a joke, while elusivator is implying “kill the consumer economy” is a slogan of the Greens and, I assume, represents some actual position that they hold, even if he apparently can’t or won’t explain what that position is or how the Greens plan to act on it, given the chance.
On further research “starve the beast” (a phrase with which Nordquist is associated) does in fact have a specific meaning, as Nordquist uses it. The wikipedia article described in two paragraphs what it means to its proponents, then goes on to name some of those proponents (including Nordquist), and adds some comments about the idea’s limitations.
All I was asking was for a similar attempt at definition of “kill the consumer economy”. As far as I’m concerned, one has no business using a slogan if one can’t or won’t explain its meaning. It suggests an abdication of thought and there’s no point acting all shocked and indignant if someone assumes a meaning which, although supported by the slogan’s literal content, isn’t what the proponents have in mind. That’s your chance to explain what you have in mind, idiot.
Greens? Greens?! Nader! Slowly I turned…inch by inch, step by step…
I don’t speak for Greens, nor implied any such thing. Probably never even used the word. Can’t be responsible for the voices in your head, bub. Now there are a few real honest to gosh Greenies around, you could talk to them, and I’ll promise to restrain the urge to strangle with my 100% organic hemp fiber rope here…
I am the Lorax. I speak for the trees.
I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues.
Seriously, I do not speak for the greens either, but I am the odd and the rare Green Republican. We exist. I am a lifetime member of a local group and contributor to many more, including Greenpeace. I voted Green many times. I vote both Dem & Republican. I usually place environmental issues above other political issues, though the wonderful current admin convinced me to vote for Kerry last time to try and get Bush out. Bush-Cheney is an environmental disaster in my book.
So what would you like to know from someone inside the Greens but not in any major or important way?
Jim …parting thought: Plant a new Truffula. Treat it with care.
Give it clean water. And feed it fresh air.
Grow a forest. Protect it from axes that hack.
Then the Lorax and all of his friends may come back.
Well, I appreciate elucidator’s attempts to be all sparkly and sarcastic and biting (I really do, since its the kind of humour I genuinely like and was a fan of TV shows that use it a lot like Frasier and Simpsons) but at this stage, I’m going to drop all counterzinging and if he won’t give a simple straightforward explanation of what he feels “kill the consumer economy” means, I guess I’m done. I’m personally suspicious of the slogan because it can be used to justify all kinds of nonsense (in threads where I’ve argued with hardcore socialists/Marxists, their desire to end private property usually gets exposed sooner or later), but I’m open to having that dispelled.
Thanks for the offer, What Exit, but at this point, I’ll settle for the slogan.
As to the original subject of this thread. the idea of a plane crashing into a reactor in no diminishes my long-standing support for nuclear power and its increased use. The hamfisted manner in which the idea is used to inspire fear does make me lose some respect for Greenpeace, though.
If the application of a clue-by-four (my Pol Pot bon mot) didn’t get him to clarify his glittering generality, I doubt your subtle approach will be any more successful.
That being the case, debating the ways and means to sustain our economy with someone who won’t go beyond “wouldn’t it be nice if people weren’t so greedy” is rather like debating Bush’s Bogus Adventure with someone who woun’t go beyond “it would have worked fine if those damn Ay-rabs had come out dancing and scattering rose petals like they were supposed to”.
Those are political problems (i.e. NIMBYism), not technical ones. Even the most threadbare of the proposed technologies for nuclear waste disposal – hell, even packing it up in old drums and dumping it out in the desert like a fly-by-night Mob-money-laundry trash pickup service – beats just spewing it into the air (which is the standard method used for fossil fuel waste products).
More precisely, I was applying what I consider an obvious corrolary to George Orwell’s observations about political language – when someone insists on not explaining his slogans, assume the worst.
Zoe, speaking as a Green, we may not have much more time to delay building new nuclear plants. It is going to take many technologies to reduce global warming and level off the increase in CO[sub]2[/sub] in the air. Nuclear, increase efficiency, pollution control, Solar, Wind, Hydro, Tidal, Cleaner Coal plants, CO[sub]2[/sub] collection into a solid form or sequestion, planting more trees, etc. (Eventually Fusion I hope.)
Nuclear can be a huge and rapid partial solution. At this point Global Warming appears to be a larger threat to the environment and humans than Nuclear waste.
