?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

unpaid political announcement

Leave No species behind!





Join the virtual march and recruit some friends for a chance to win a wildlife-customized IPod Nano!





i know many of you couldn't give two shits about polar bears or otters. do it for the ipod nano then.

Comments

( 7 comments — Leave a comment )
joodas
Mar. 15th, 2006 05:46 pm (UTC)
What benifit is there to a demonstration if the motive of the demonstrators is questionable?

Anyone witnessing the 'march' won't see a group of people who care about animals, they'll see a group of people who want Ipods.
delascabezas
Mar. 15th, 2006 05:48 pm (UTC)
sure
but that is the potivator to kick in the viral marketing effect. the idea of doing it for a cause is why i am bothering to forward it. at the end of the day, what congress cares about its the number of signatures on the page, not what question was asked when people were signing.

infallability of data is not possible when you are dealing with corruption. if 100,000 people sign up for ONE ipod, that is pretty weak.
delascabezas
Mar. 15th, 2006 05:57 pm (UTC)
furthermore
it is not so different in real protests. if you think of the mobilization of people protesting the vietman war, there were lots of reasons people showed up, and not everyone agreed on them. agendas often differ, what makes the impact to leaders is when they see that many bodies in one place that at least agree to disagree, regardless of the motivating factors that got them there in the first place.
joodas
Mar. 15th, 2006 06:02 pm (UTC)
Re: furthermore
The difference with a social motivator, like people who protest for the sense of unity is that it's stable. That unity wont go away.

Ipods on the other hand are more finite. Unless there's an individual or corporation decicated to continually pumping ipods into the cause, I'd imagine most politicians will conclude that this protest is something that will quickly go away by itself.

thecurlyboy
Mar. 15th, 2006 06:36 pm (UTC)
Not that it's not a worthy cause. Not that it's not something I agree with. But pro-conservation groups always make me laugh with their amazingly biased, hypocritical propaganda.

The Defenders of Wildlife action fund is apparently supporting this march, and, from their own site, they make statements like "Help us make sure that folks like you and me -- not just the free-spending lobbyists and greedy special interests who pay them -- have a say in the policies that affect our country’s precious wildlife and great wild places."

Well, here's another clip, from Newswire, about DoW's purpose. "WASHINGTON, Jan. 22 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Today, wildlife proponents announced the launch of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, a new, independent organization designed to give conservation voters an added voice in the upcoming legislative and political battles in 2004. The new organization will lobby for pro-conservation policies...". So, apparently, DoW is one of those free-spending lobbyists.

And, while I'm at it, pro-conservationist *are* a special interest group. Which makes them, theoretically, one of those greedy SIGs their website insinuates are bad.

Again, I'm all for this thing. I think it's a good idea. But it always frustrates me to see groups that could do some real good get sucked into making it into a good vs. evil issue, when it's really nothing of the sort.
peamasii
Mar. 15th, 2006 07:27 pm (UTC)
I agree with your assesment that it's not a choice of good over evil. The issue at hand is drilling in Alaska. Sure, it's not a nice thing to do. But if the price of oil was to go to $3/gallon, would most people object? What about 4, 5, or how about $10/gallon, as it is in Europe right now? What will happen to transportation and manufacturing industries? not to mention everyone's private transportation costs.

I think it's unrealistic to expect certain industries to function just as good regardless of the resources (un)available. If people were to say, OK, I am willing to cut down my energy consumption over time by this much, and I expect that natural resources should be protected by this much. But that's not what they say. They say "evil corporation are destroying the environment" when in fact all of us are living within the same system.
delascabezas
Mar. 15th, 2006 07:33 pm (UTC)
hm
i guess my issue is that the price of oil is based partially on consumption, but also on corporate spending policy. the idea that we may eventually have to tap into protected resources to keep the beast afloat seems like an enevitability in most people who view fossil fuels as the only viable source of keeping the beast lurching forward.

the fact remains that if half the time, energy and money were put into alternatives research and development that are put into oil profiteering, the solutions would be there for the bulk consumers, at a cheaper, more envrionmentally sound manner.

this is, imo, the shortsightedness of free market that is not truly free market, but rather legislated market via lobbyist.

i am not trying to play this as good vs evil, or even right vs wrong. i do not want to be drilling in alaska, and i'd rather people be faced between choosing between filling their car and paying their rent than frantically squeezing to the last dop before public outcry forces the technology paradigm shift.
( 7 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

Steam Escaping!
delascabezas
The Son of the last of a long line of thinkers.
delascabezas.com

Latest Month

February 2017
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728    

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow