73 replies to this topic

[casematic]

I think a more realistic interpretation would be that they were NIMBY's. Big difference.

What is a NIMBY?

[annasea]

What is a NIMBY?

Not In My Backyard.

People who don't want annoying features (highway, nuclear power plant, etc) built in their area.

[casematic]

Salaries don't bother me, espeically if they are published. After all, you tend to get what your pay for.

like the head of Enron and the 400 plus million he gave himself in salary and bonus as they were going under . . . . . . just adding a little humor (please don't take offense). I doubt that would have been published info had there not been the trouble.

I'm all in favor of published salary info (especially if there are stockholders or contributors to answer to) ..... as long as it were straight up and not just an imaginary number for print (including the bonus/perks, etc)... That might help curb some of the corruption.

[normblitch]

What is a NIMBY?

Not In My Backyard.

People who don't want annoying features (highway, nuclear power plant, etc) built in their area.

unfortunately, their Grand Motives usually DON'T extend to OTHERS' backyards...hence the derision from those with more Genuine mores...



Norm

[normblitch]

Salaries don't bother me, espeically if they are published.  After all, you tend to get what your pay for. 

OTOH, what does bother me is some of the tactics that some of these groups use.  I donate to charities, I volunteer, I support environmental causes, I conserve energy by making good choices such as living close enough to walk to work and recycling, but I don't condone the, for lack of a better word, terror tactics used by some of these groups.

To tell you the truth, I don't know much about Greenpeace's recent activities. I do know hthey used to put their boats between whales and the whale fishermen. And it think it was them who painted the pelts of the baby harp seals so they would be clubbed and skinned. I don't think those are terror tactics.

You GO Gurl!!



Norm

[normblitch]

If you'd like some info on who makes the bucks in environmental organizations and if it's out of line, Click here

I use this group's website as one of the guidelines in my own giving.

(and yes, Greenpeace doesn't come out looking too good--them and a couple of others.)

You have got to be joking me. This "watchdog" group who did this study, (whomever they are) thinks $70,600+ is an outrageous salary for the top dog in an international conservation group? Give me a break. Just for fun, does this "watchdog" group look up the salaries and compensation given to the the top dogs of the United Way, Red Cross or even tax-exempt "religious" organizations? You want to have your hair stand up on end and vow never to give another dollar to those organizations? Look them up.

As for Casematic's contention that the anti oil people who were demonstating were "conservationists" I think a more realistic interpretation would be that they were NIMBY's. Big difference.

no, not really Big Difference.....

HUGE DIFFERENCE!!

Norm

[cmt489]

It was really their past actions that I am referring to:

Forbe's article

Trust me, I believe in the principles that they stand for, but I don't always believe that the ends justify the means. IMO, there are other ways to get your point across.

[jholley309]

(Don't tell me you haven't read any of Douglas Adams' Hitchhikers Trilogy books?!)

42

Yes, but what's the Ultimate Question?

Say, what doooo they run that honkin' big vessel with, anyway?

Sperm Whale oil

KIDDING - just kidding, put down the pitch forks and torches.

Hey, that's no fun! Pitch forks and torches give the place such a lovely ambience!

Not that I'm a huge fan of Greenpeace (I think their overall goals are worthy, I just don't agree with their stand on nuclear issues), but they do at least go about their protest activities (usually) in an intelligent fashion, unlike a certain "animal rights" group, which is liable to turn a bunch of research animals infected with some horrible plague loose in the name of compassion one of these days. As for salaries, $70k/year actually seems a tad low, considering the huge publicity target you'd make in that position. People deserve to be adequately compensated for their time, be they a telecommunications robber baron or the head of a national (or international, for that matter) non-profit organization. Okay, so the robber baron's compensation could be padded just a tad less...

And IMHO, NIMBYs don't qualify as "environmentalists", regardless of what stickers they have next to the soccer ball on their tailgate. People like that are part of the reason we don't have an adequate light rail solution in metro Atlanta (and no, MARTA is not adequate). They want to do something about air quality and greenhouse emissions? Bite the bullet and let 'em build the train lines we need to get some of those gas-guzzling, lumbering shopping carts off the road.

Bah! Off with their pointy little heads, I sez!

Cheers!

Jim

[casematic]

Bah! Off with their pointy little heads, I sez!

Brief ... and to the point.... perfect (or should that be ARRRGH in pirate-ese)

[Hipshot]

And IMHO, NIMBYs don't qualify as "environmentalists", regardless of what stickers they have next to the soccer ball on their tailgate.

NIMBYs are the real-life equivalent of the Eloi in H.G. Wells' TheTime Machine. They want the infrastructure and quality of life, but they don't want to see the Morlocks who make it all possible.

Heresy Dept.: In all probability Prudhoe Bay will recover from the Exxon Valdiz spill sooner than the coral damaged by Greenpeace will. Coral reefs, particularly the deeper-water boulder corals, grow at a very slow rate. While the damage at Prudhoe Bay was far more visceral in terms of public perception, Prudhoe Bay has already been recolonized by marine life, and the community will evolve to what it was prior to the spill, if it hasn't already.

IMHO Dept.: Greenpeace is more concerned with promoting a leftist, anti-Capitalist agenda than it is about protecting the environment.

Rick


My opponent is the breakfast of champions.

[drdiver]

You have got to be joking me. This "watchdog" group who did this study, (whomever they are) thinks $70,600+ is an outrageous salary for the top dog in an international conservation group? Give me a break. lmao.gif Just for fun, does this "watchdog" group look up the salaries and compensation given to the the top dogs of the United Way, Red Cross or even tax-exempt "religious" organizations? You want to have your hair stand up on end and vow never to give another dollar to those organizations? Look them up.

If you actually read the article, you'd see that part of their critieria for evaluating salary propriety was whether the headquarters group actually did anything. Greenpeace's activities are mostly confined to field actions and local chapter actions. The headquarter's doesn't do much more than publish a newsletter. And if you had read the article, the "top dog" actually makes significantly more than $70,600. that--he gets money from other parts of the organization as well.

They had no quarrel with salaries for the Sierra Club as the headquarters group supports a large lobbyist effort and numerous outreach programs.

They have similar views on the Nature Conservancy. Both organizations which I enthusiastically support.

To compare Greenpeace to the United Way and the Red Cross is very irresponsible. Those noble organizations help millions of people every year. Whatever salaries their CEOs make is well deserved.

[Basslet]

It was really their past actions that I am referring to:

Forbe's article

Trust me, I believe in the principles that they stand for, but I don't always believe that the ends justify the means. IMO, there are other ways to get your point across.

The link doesn't work.

[Basslet]

IMHO Dept.: Greenpeace is more concerned with promoting a leftist, anti-Capitalist agenda than it is about protecting the environment.

Yet another secret "agenda". I know there is a "gay agenda" or the vast "right wing conspiracy agenda", but not the "leftist anti-capitalist and screw the environment" agenda.

[cmt489]

It was really their past actions that I am referring to:

Forbe's article

Trust me, I believe in the principles that they stand for, but I don't always believe that the ends justify the means.  IMO, there are other ways to get your point across.

The link doesn't work.

I have fixed the link above and have reposted it here again...

Forbes Article

[drdiver]

Well, Greenpeace's agenda is pretty open. It's fairly hard to find anything on their websites where they say anything positive about any large corporation, any democratic government or any mainstream activity focused on the environment. I don't support them because I think there are other organizations that are more effective and do it in a more open, consensus building manner. They have their own vision and it's not completely wrong, but economics drives most human activities and I think it's more effective to work with forces that are effective. For example, I hope gas prices stay high. I think we need more federal taxes on gasoline. Reduce, reuse, recycle--economics not carping makes these things happen. Same way with the Nature Conservancy--buy land on the open market, protect it for future generations.