Knowledge is the wrong word here Bob. It should be perception. Just because a bunch of lazy dumb asses sit around stoking a doobie and ¨seeing reality¨ oh so clearly does not make that an objective reality. It remains a perception. I have posted how much oil and gas companies give to worthless NGOs in much the same way others used to buy indulgences in the Middle Ages. It is blackmail plain and simple and the reality (cough cough) is that from what I can determine (my perception… see how this works…) is that the NGOs have accomplished nothing.
Knowledge is the wrong word here Bob. It should be perception. Just because a bunch of lazy dumb asses sit around stoking a doobie and ¨seeing reality¨ oh so clearly does not make that an objective reality. It remains a perception. I have posted how much oil and gas companies give to worthless NGOs in much the same way others used to buy indulgences in the Middle Ages. It is blackmail plain and simple and the reality (cough cough) is that from what I can determine (my perception… see how this works…) is that the NGOs have accomplished nothing.[/quote]
It’s not blackmail so much as graft, but yeah, change “nothing” to “not a lot” and I imagine you have a good point, if indeed you intended one. Your posts are becoming less coherent by the day.
Here’s some dirt on Cananda…
youtube.com/watch?v=YkwoRivP … re=related
It’s got oil soaked birds, corrupt governments, dumb asses, an old Indian trapper, truck drivers with gorgeous tits and a guy on the edge of tears with outrage at it all. You’ll love it.
Well, NGO’s have made people aware of the issue. They have helped create a cultural climate that is more receptive to legislation and other forms of government action to deal with environmental issues. They have put pressure on businesses to become more green, some of which is greenwash, some of which is real.
I think the way to judge environmental groups is in terms of what they have protected, not produced. Endless parks, biodiversity, whales, wolves etc etc. Yes there are some droopy bong hitters amongst them, of yeah, big time! Heaps of flakey-o’s. But also some extremely decent people doing little campaigns to save a stand of ancient trees here, clean up a river there. And their lawyers and lobbyists push for greener legislation.
So to say they have accomplished nothing is absurd. That’s my perception, no coughing.
I probably should have changed “not a lot” to “quite a bit actually but not nearly as much as could be hoped for, especially in terms of global warming.”
Thanks Big John.
Talking to fred too long was turning me cynical.
Ah yes, of course, creating awareness. When all else fails and no other metric can be shown to have indicated any success, there is always ¨creating awareness.¨ That should be coupled with the other following bullshit lines: holding workshops, hosting conferences and training the trainers. And it is NGOs without the apostrophe. There is no possession here except when it comes to owning insanity and worthless posturing.
More bullshit to take credit for something that cannot be proved to be directly as a result of the NGO and its action.
My you like to use action and issues. Are you sure that you don´t work for an NGO yourself)?
put pressure… okay this is sounding more and more like an annual report of name-it NGO which-has-failed-to-achieve-shit-but-is-requesting-more-money-to-keep-the-director-and-staff-employed.
Another sucker born every minute. Congratulations! You keep the NGO world alive!
IF ONLY!
Most of these were in existence LONG before NGOs got into the picture. Can you mention a specific park oh say Yellowstone, Hdye´s Park, Central Park that was created because of an NGO?
Even with the bio, I feel the need for an instinctive genuflection here. All hail diversity. It is the MOST important variable of all…
poodles, chihuahuas… etc…
One sentence that we can agree upon.
Two for two, can we make three?
Just to make it three for three, I will agree with the word extreme here and leave the rest with a sigh…
Well, absurd is the absence of meaning-significance so I would say your sentence philosophically is much more accurate no doubt due to subconscious thoughts than you probably intended. Again, agreed!
[quote]That’s my perception, no coughing.BigJohn
KTV Is My Life (jiùshì ài chàng KTV)[/quote]
Yes, it is YOUR perception. But is it significant or objective? Well?
Less coherent to Bob means that I am speaking clearly and communicating in a strong fashion. When you start understanding me, I will stop posting, check into Betty Ford and try to get my sobriety-sanity back.
I just finished watching Avatar again. It is on cable. I am staying in a hotel. What can I say?
Once again, I recalled with revulsion, the pompous, know-it-all good vs. evil battle between those who understand the indigenous and those who are out to destroy the jungle and mine and loot the resources of the region. Only problem in this as-usual-one-sided debate is that in the real world, many indigenous WANT development to get the things that all people want: better schools, clinics, etc. Most do not want to continue to live their traditional lifestyle. Hey, dying in your 20s and 30s during childbirth, from septicemia, the common cold, dysentry, all those things that we left back in the 1700s are every day reality in the world that caring NGOs want to save. The real issues these days is not saving the traditional indigenous lifestyle (are we to return to log cabins and pestistential straw-covered huts to preserve ours? and why is it only the brown people who need to live on reservations to preserve this all-important lifestyle?). But here again, we had the knowing superior do gooders pitted against the senseless (complete with Texan yeehaws on cue) selfish rapers of Mother Earth who just don´t get it. Why don´t they get it? Why don´t they understand? If they would just open their eyes and see? This is precisely the closed, visionless attitude that poisons so many debates about development. And I question whether this is about saving some ancient stand of trees. It is about every ancient stand of trees. It is about every squirrel habitat. It is about every dolphin swimming ground. The simple fact remains that like the NGOs and oil and gas companies, they will not rest until EVERY oil company invests EVERY penny in alternative energy world be damned. It is about not allowing any more development not just in key areas. This is the real lie of this whole movement. There can be no responsible companies or development. It is all evil and must be stopped and with those kinds of attitudes… well, how did we get here? I would argue that it is precisely to keep in business while cloaking actions in superior motives. If the problem is solved, no job for the ¨caring¨ there would be no need for the NGO. Talk about mission creep. We should force all these organizations in their charters to indicate their core mission, how what they want to achieve will be measured and then force them to shut down when that goal is accomplished. Enough!
The air and water and pollution in the West are at much lower rates than in ages and that is a huge improvement. The new battles are over minor but costly incremental improvements in air and water quality that come at a very high cost. Ditto for new development whether for refineries or pipelines or factories or highways. Not one can be allowed. THIS is the real problem with the environmental movement today and throw in the usual German militarism and you have a very violent stupid lockstep marching group of fascists (oh the irony. If only they could see? Why won´t they see?) hahahaha
But would you hit it, fred? Hmmmm? 
Well, fred you know judging the environmental movement by watching Avatar is you know, perhaps not using the most accurate sources? I mean, would we judge the Meiji restoration by watching the Last Samurai? Or Wall Street by watching Wall Street? But yes you have a general point about the entire huggy dreamy attitude of environmentalists. The thing is, no one in their right mind would want environmentalists to run the world, just as no one in their right mind would want the OWS folks making government policy. What these people are is a reaction - like a histamine reaction in a way, not that we should take the analogy too far - where the stuffy nose and mucus is a response to a deeper threat to the patient’s health.
The environmental movement may be narrowly focused, so people in it get a bit dreamy and bear spirity, and I can see how that can annoy some people. But while the song they are playing may have too few notes, those are the notes missing from the larger song. We NEED those notes. And slowly those notes are coming to be more and more played in the big song. And this is to the credit of the eco movement.
What are the notes? Care about nature, love nature, protect biodiversity, push for green reform, maintain healthy levels of fish stocks, protect the ozone layer, reduce toxic waste, reduce GHG. Use less, better. NGO’s have had a huge role in promoting these ideas both in terms of general awareness and legislation / executive / corporate action.
And have helped make the world a better place.
I’m sorry if you can’t understand. I think your soul is wounded. Maybe you need to go for a sweat lodge retreat on Salt Spring Island? Love and peace, brother! 
I would like to go with Fred, I will make him a get well soon earth card.
I would like to go with Fred, I will make him a get well soon earth card.[/quote]
Let’s all give Fred a big online hug so he can heal his wounded soul and accept the truth about Global Warming!
HUG!
Just kidding Fred. Please continue with your fascinating posts. But if you want the hug, it’s there. 
[quote]What are the notes? Care about nature, love nature, protect biodiversity, push for green reform, maintain healthy levels of fish stocks, protect the ozone layer, reduce toxic waste, reduce GHG. Use less, better. NGO’s have had a huge role in promoting these ideas both in terms of general awareness and legislation / executive / corporate action.
And have helped make the world a better place. [/quote]
Perhaps, but I would argue that more was done by true conservationalists of which I would consider myself one than these NGOs. I disagree that a bunch of ineffectual, but well-meaning and arent they always NGO staff is the key to solving our problems. The members of these NGOs do like to get paid for work that is NOT in the corporate sector but who ultimately pays these bills? Those working in the PRODUCTIVE sector and I really hope that the tax reform leads to cutting off the charitable deduction. This is getting to be as bad as Tang Dynasty China with too many valuable resources locked up in Buddhist monasteries with society (Ford, Gates, other foundations) competing over who can be the most holy. Enough! If you want to give resources, give them out of your taxable income. Put your money where your mouth is. Otherwise, these revenues should be going into the government coffers. I mean, it is precisely these NGOs and others of their ilk who claim more government is the solution not we. So shouldnt they be putting their money where their mouths are?
I will believe it when I see it because as usual these idiots will not figure that out until they see the dire consequences and then they will be squealing aka protesting for changes to save the world aka their salaries.
Please do make that get well card and post it here. I would love to see it. As I am already in Argentina for the month, I doubt that I will need to go on any other form of retreat. What a great place to wear out a pair of Gucci loafers!
Upon reading that I just released some CO2 to warm my chair if you get my er drift…
And another one!
Many thanks for your kind words, I apologize for my inconsiderate release of CO2 
Actually, probably most NGO staffers are unpaid or underpaid. Most of them do it because they believe in their cause.
How many guys on Wall Street would do that?
Compared to whom? Not to your average man on the street. This is the same myth as teachers are underpaid. Bullshit. And at the executive level, they get paid VERY handsomely. This is often about getting contracts and ¨business¨ just like any other job. They are invested in promoting their cause and the related issues to keep the funds flowing. Most are unemployable in the private sector, just like teachers and government workers so they are desperate to keep the revenues coming in to support their incomes.
Proabably the same 90% who are getting very low salaries and struggling to make ends meet by earning commissions in expensive cities like New York in hopes of one day getting to be a managing director and thus part of the 10%. Don´t think these Wall Street jobs are a piece of cake. The hours are horrendous, the pay is shit and everyone lives off of commissions. No sales, no income. One day after 10 years of 100 hour weeks and no weekends or vacations, they may make it to the big league only to have their company or firm merge or get bought out just to start all over again and who wants to hire the 35 year old when the newly graduated 22 year old will work much harder and has the stamina to do so?
Oh come on! NGO salaries compared to Wall Street salaries? No comparison. And what about volunteers? Be serious!
[quote=“BigJohn”]Well, NGO’s have made people aware of the issue. They have helped create a cultural climate that is more receptive to legislation and other forms of government action to deal with environmental issues. They have put pressure on businesses to become more green, some of which is greenwash, some of which is real.
I think the way to judge environmental groups is in terms of what they have protected, not produced. Endless parks, biodiversity, whales, wolves etc etc. Yes there are some droopy bong hitters amongst them, of yeah, big time! Heaps of flakey-o’s. But also some extremely decent people doing little campaigns to save a stand of ancient trees here, clean up a river there. And their lawyers and lobbyists push for greener legislation.
So to say they have accomplished nothing is absurd. That’s my perception, no coughing.[/quote]
I don’t understand this debate about NGOs. They are just organizations formed to promote a cause. I don’t like NGOs that are supported by government funds but, any other self funded (usually by donors) NGOs are fine by me. It’s also silly to paint them all with one brush. Some have accomplished things to better a situation while others have done quite a bit of harm.
That would be a completely silly comparison. In fact anyone trying to make such a comparison is displaying an incredible amount of ignorance about what a NGO actually is or, what a business or corporation is.
[quote=“BigJohn”]Actually, probably most NGO staffers are unpaid or underpaid. Most of them do it because they believe in their cause.
How many guys on Wall Street would do that?[/quote]
I would say Executives in the non-profit sector are grossly overpaid (many making .5 to $1 million a year) and they are much less accountable because there is often much weaker oversight/transparency for non-profits compared with executives in corporations that are responsible to shareholders. They may believe in their cause but many also love the money and unaccountability.
[quote=“ChewDawg”][quote=“BigJohn”]Actually, probably most NGO staffers are unpaid or underpaid. Most of them do it because they believe in their cause.
How many guys on Wall Street would do that?[/quote]
I would say Executives in the non-profit sector are grossly overpaid (many making .5 to $1 million a year) and they are much less accountable because there is often much weaker oversight/transparency for non-profits compared with executives in corporations that are responsible to shareholders. They may believe in their cause but many also love the money an unaccountability.[/quote]
There are tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of NGOs operating throughout the world. The vast majority of them operate on shoestring budgets and wouldn’t even see $500 000 to $1 million a year in total in their wildest dreams. Executives in a relatively small handful of NGOs may make salaries like that, but they probably don’t account for much more than 1-2% of the NGOs operating.