The two lobbying groups that are piling money into Main Street are Wall Street and Silicon Valley. Wall Street has always had a bit of a hypocritical "green" bent--they rely on oil-run companies to have an economy to play bets with. Nevertheless, once they make their money, a whole lot tends to go into green causes: witness Bloomberg's donation to the Sierra Club. Silicon Valley has an even more aggressive agenda when it comes to green causes, and it has nowhere near the ties to the current economy that would make it think twice. In Dublin, I had the pleasure of watching Tony Fadell (the co-founder of Nest, acquired by Google for $3 billion) speak and I briefly met him. There was a consistent theme of green politics that resonated through the event and every meeting Tony had. You might find his interview with Laurie Segall on the main stage informative as a measure of that temperature: <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CWUCdVn_2Mo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> The video is an interesting primer into the future of hardware and more importantly the future of how Google thinks, straight from the lion's den. Larry and Tony meet several times a week. So when Tony says he sees Google's mission shifting from "organizing information" to "accelerating positive social change" while explicitly mentioning climate change and helming a company that makes its living on energy efficiency--well, you won't need a Nest to figure out where that is going. To tie this back into the thread: Abandoning the repressive regime that governs Saudi Arabia should be seen as part of a larger shift from fossil fuels. And we will all be better for it.
Not since the post-war world order came into play. (let's just forget Crimea though, and the end of days rant that came with it)
Cleverly disguised "I bought tickets to the web summit and will just dump that little factoid in some completely unrelated thread" post.
I didn't buy tickets to the web summit, I was invited lol. It wasn't very cleverly disguised either, though neither is your unrelated personal riposte. It was supposed to accentuate what I thought was a hidden reality that's openly discussed in certain conferences but not readily discussed outside of them. I don't like it when people say "wish upon a star" and when they refuse to put their heads outside of the sand. When people do that I tend to bring up what's actually going on.
lollllll you're ego-trippin hard eh? You're derailing your own thread, and I feel like the direction this is headed will only lead to more bulls**t. If you want to meet and talk tech, I think you gave me rep that indicated you know who I am and if you're as obsessive with personal tracking as you seem to be on this forum, I've left more than enough hints so get at me outside of this forum. As we're aligned on divesting from fossil fuels, I'm more down to wait on an answer from the Rojo then you in this thread tbh.
I did think it was weird that they started inviting people like Adrien Grenier and Tony Hawk :/ Suddenly though, a bunch of geeks working together is "sexy", so meh. c'est la vie. anyways, I leave that offer up, because honestly, if there's one thing you should know about me, it's that I never hold personal stuff to heart, especially internet drama lololol.
In what case is it ok to remove people from their homes they have lived in for generations? Homes they built? And to do it by fear, threats, bulldozing, or violence? Its such a western centric pov that colonizing another people is ok if it serves one's interest. You must have loved the British Empire
In the case that the inhabitants forcefully removed other individuals. So when those individuals go back to their home, having been occupied by intruders (essentially), they take back their home. This is a process of reclamation in which the directly affected have recorrected an injustice. This happened in parts of Iraq when the US overthrew Saddam. So should they give it back to the Ottomans?
The comparison is merited in terms of the initial colonialism. Now for the USA to compare we should have at the present a state religion which specifically excludes Native Americans from living in the majority of the USA. The USA would have to discriminate against them wrt to marriage and all the other ways in which by law even Palestinian citizens of Israel are. The Native Americans can still have their reservations, but there will be continual checkpoints; they will have different passports and license plates; they will be forbidden to travel between the reservations; by law they will have to go overseas to intermarry with non-native Americans; they will be screened by law differently at airports etc. Rather unthinking to try to claim that Native Americans are treated like even the Palestinians citizens of Israel, much less the inhabitants of Gaza and the West Bank. Frankly as the world becomes more aware, by present standards, Israel has been legitimized. Are their worse countries in existence now? Sure, but if Israel wants to be seen as a democratic country with western values and government it must give up its discriminatory practices and past suffering inflicted by the Nazis is no excuse.
