Post a response to this discussion thread
“The worse they can portray the environment, the easier it is for them to convince us that we need to spend more money on the environment rather than on hospitals, child day care, etc.” Thus spake the Great Dane on the corporate chain.
This is a classic “either-or” sophistry: if you’re against us, you’re against Mom, apple-cheeked children and helping raise the poor and sick out of their quagmire of poverty and debilitation.
Who, pray, does more to injure the health and economic well- being of say, poor families in areas of Louisiana? Is it those crabbed old environmentalists who point out the environmental abuses of chemical companies and oil refineries that count on the traditional powerlessness of the folks living adjacent to their chemical-spewing businesses?
Anyone who believes that the use of public monies comes down to a choice between environmentalism OR health and human services was probably dim enough to believe that it was a matter of NASA research OR social programs. (“We can put a man on the moon so why can’t we cure poverty?” Because one is a technological feat; the other is mired in millennia of self-destructive human behavior. Money alone won’t cure the latter.)
The environmental movement overlaps the human rights movement one hell of a lot more than the big-business-forever stance overlaps concern for the average under-represented citizen.
Clear enough? Now please pardon me — I’m going back to planning on how best to present ROS & GUIL ARE DEAD to innocent students. You’ll understand, I’m sure, that in the choice between either grundle OR Stoppard, there’s virtually no overlap.
Unless — has anyone got a coin?
Post a response to this discussion thread