“Greenpeace recently released their ‘Guide to Greener Electronics,’ rating fourteen consumer electronics vendors. Following in the same tradition as the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, Greenpeace issued a press release that specifically called attention to Apple and assigned the company a failing grade,” Daniel Eran writes for RoughlyDrafted.
“While the Greenpeace report attempted to rank vendors based upon useful and practical criteria, the actual scorecard and the methods used to collect information for their report were sloppy and incompetent. This should come as no surprise to anyone aware of Greenpeace activities,” Eran writes.
“The report’s ranking criteria, available online, suggest that Greenpeace was reporting more on each vendor’s web marketing savvy than their actual environmental record,” Eran writes. “Criteria included points for companies that had advertised a chemical policy and had published ‘policies’ and ‘timelines’ for phasing out the use of specific chemicals. Other points were awarded based on companies’ own reports of the amounts of e-waste they collected and recycled, and their advertised takeback policies.”
Eran writes, “Across the nine items, the report ranked each company either bad, partially bad, partially good, or good. The criteria report doesn’t explain how ‘partially good’ compares to ‘partially bad,’ but it is obvious that the ranking puts far more weight upon what companies publicly say rather than what they actually do. It is also clear that Greenpeace intended the report more as an attention getting stunt than a serious rating of corporations’ actual responsibility.”
“It’s the low end consumer market that commonly ends up dumping their old electronic equipment improperly. The machines on the low end of the market are also the most toxic, due to their reliance on cheap CRT displays to hit a low price point,” Eran writes. “The vast majority of cheap PCs are pumped out by Dell and HP, supposedly the two ‘greenest’ companies, according to the worthless Greenpeace report.”
Eran writes, “Not only did Greenpeace fail to understand the real issues involved, but their data came primarily from manufacturers’ websites rather than real research or third party auditing.”
“Greenpeace is more interested in putting themselves in a lot of headlines, rather than in presenting real information on the state of the tech industry’s environmental record, or in calling attention to the responsibility of consumers to make smart decisions that might actually have some impact on environmental issues,” Eran writes. “By shamelessly acting as another Apple parasite, Greenpeace not only distracts attention away from the smoke and mirrors deception of cheap, disposable PC makers’ supposedly green efforts to profit on environmentalism, but also besmirches Apple’s reputation and ignores their real actions taken to prevent toxic trash from ever needing any recycling.”
Full article here.
Related article:
Greenpeace criticizes Apple over toxic waste – August 29, 2006
Greenpiece of s—.
Go ride your bikes and don’t wear any non biodegradeable clothes. Either that, or hammer some spikes into trees, so that people get injured.
What? A radical left-wing environmental group has lied, has misconstrued and misrepresented the “facts”. What’s their excuse, “Al Gore made me do it?” I guess that if this is true this ruins the credibility of Greenpeace. Now, will left-wingers castigate and criticize Greenpeace for willful misconduct or will we see a tearful group hug with chanting to restore Greenpeace’s self esteem.
What? A radical any-wing group has lied, has misconstrued and misrepresented the “facts”?
Yeah of course if this is true Greenpeace should have to face some liability I think. I’ve never been a fan of Greenpeace, and HOLY SHIT I’m A LIBERAL! Any radical group on ANY side of any fence will always misrepresent because of their emotional involvement. And they will always do more harm to the cause than good, but they’ll never realize it. It’s not a “left wing” thing, it happens with any group on almost any issue. You don’t have to look any further than the Fundy Christians to understand that.
An activist group releasing a sloppy biased report? Where’s the news in that? If Greenpeace released a well researched unbiased report, that would be real news. Any activist group, whether left or right, will bias reports to fit their agenda. The conclusion is pre-determined and the only methodology is how to make the facts fit the conclusion. That is why they are called “activists”.
C’mon, G-Spank, say it. Say that if Greenpeace is found guilty of falsifying or misrepresenting data that Greenpeace is discredited, has deceived the public, and has conspired to propagandize. Say that everyone needs to objectively examine the facts before believing everything told them or acting irrationally. Be bold, don’t let bewilderment and confusion restrain your inner emotions and righteous indignation. Tell us, without equivocation or vacillation, what you would say if Greenpeace has deliberately lied. C’mon, G-Spank, say it.
Or will you prudently repress your inclination to make any assumptions or say anything untoward? Will you demurely give Greenpeace the benefit of the doubt and argue against a misguided rush to judgment? That’s OK, I understand. I’m not asking you to pass sentence. Hypothetically, just say now what you would say later if Greenpeace were found guilty of deception. You can do that, right? But will you, G-Spank, will you?
If Greenpeace is found guilty of falsifying or misrepresenting data that Greenpeace is discredited, has deceived the public, and has conspired to propagandize.
Everyone needs to objectively examine the facts (to the best of their ability) before believing everything told them or acting irrationally.
Hey wow, that was easy, because I believe that anyway. Now Maczealot, would you ever consider putting aside your emotions and acknowledging that I may be right about some things sometimes? Just curious.
If you’re talking zealots and misleading, incorrect information look at the source of the criticism…RoughlyDrafted boy is so biased it hurts. The guy will defend Apple no matter what the evidence may suggest.
G-Spank, maybe we are witnessing a change in public discourse where rational debate, sensible science, objective analysis, and impartiality can defeat the extremism that too often permeates national politics.
I smell chum.
Maczealot…
Yeah, left-wingers will do that around the same time that right-wingers do the same re: faulty intelligence in Iraq that has cost the lives of over 30,000 Iraqis (using even the President’s shaky “jar of beans” guesstimate, but probably closer to 100,000) and over 2,500 US service personnel and rising.
What’s more harmful? A report that might cost Apple some brownie points in the eyes of the public (like the public care about the environment) or a catalogue of lies and falsehoods that is likely to land up costing the country around ONE TRILLION DOLLARS ($3,000 for every man, woman and child in the US) by the time US troops are completely withdrawn, not including the ongoing care of veterans.
Of course, you’ll say that it was the responsibility of the world community to remove an evil and odious dictator. Too true. So we’ll be invading Myanmar any day now. Or Zimbabwe.
And just as a reminder, the “campaign for Middle East freedom” was about the third justification for invading Iraq after…
1) WMD – none
2) Links to 9/11 – none, as admitted by the President ‘accidentally’ during a recent White House press conference.
If that’s all too difficult for you, maybe right-wingers can at least all get around a table and agree about whether the Earth and all the life on it was created by a large explosion, accretion and evolution or whether it was all done as per a fairy-story in a book and then apologize for damaging the teaching of science in schools.
maczealot, in reguards to your last statement, i highly doubt it. case in point: the world trade centers fell at nearly free fall speed (according to some crazy newtonian physics ie F=MA) and yet people still believe that two commercial jets and the subsiquent fire brought the buildings down. I’m sorry but something stinks in the USA and it isn’t just greenpeas.
and y’all took it!
Maczealot sez:
“Say that if Greenpeace is found guilty of falsifying or misrepresenting data that Greenpeace is discredited, has deceived the public, and has conspired to propagandize. Say that everyone needs to objectively examine the facts before believing everything told them or acting irrationally. Be bold, don’t let bewilderment and confusion restrain your inner emotions and righteous indignation. Tell us, without equivocation or vacillation, what you would say if Greenpeace has deliberately lied. C’mon, G-Spank, say it.”
Nice wording Maczealot. Now remove the word “Greenpeace” and insert “President Bush”. It works. Only problem here is that Greenpeace is a private organization, while President Dipshit is supposed to be in charge of our fscking country. That’s what sucks.
Can’t wait to catch the BBC show about President Dumbass getting assassinated. Yeah, I know that it’s a dramatization, but it will still make me feel good inside.
@ajg, hit the nail on the head. If Dell were at the bottom of the scale and Apple close to the top, RoughlyDrafted would have an article about “Green” companies lambasting Dell and praising Apple. pointing to the (hypothetical) Greenpeace report as “evidence” and “fact”.
So how can we get Apple and other manufacturers to be more green?
re:”Can’t wait to catch the BBC show about President Dumbass getting assassinated. Yeah, I know that it’s a dramatization, but it will still make me feel good inside.”
Get counseling of some kind right away!
It’s a shame Maczealot, that you couldn’t say that I might be right about a few things. I guess it’s a one way street with you. If so, that makes you an extremist. You know what they say about negotiating with extremists.
Greenpeace’s motto should be “misleading and incompetent” because that’s precisely what that organization is.
OK, that went well.
‘misleading and incompetent’
Greenpeace(of crap) misleading and incompetent? No way! I can’t believe that!
“2) Links to 9/11 – none, as admitted by the President ‘accidentally’ during a recent White House press conference.”
Thats right, those planes were were accidentally flown into buildings due to sun spots, not people…..
Cum ba ya my lord, cum ba ya…..
1) WMD – none
Except for the Sarin Gas, and Mustard Gas….but that doesn’t count I guess.
Of course, the question everyone ignores. Where are the weapons? Even the UN has reported that these weapons existed at one point. So where are they now? I think that is more important that calling everyone liars, etc.
“and yet people still believe that two commercial jets and the subsiquent fire brought the buildings down. I’m sorry but something stinks in the USA and it isn’t just greenpeas.”
I don’t believe it. We here at the NWO actually blew the buildings up, which is why the falling towers were so controlled. We then used our magical “Busherizing” technology (that we licensed from the Skull and Bones society) to make all the materials used to demolish the building vanish into thin air. We then worked with our partners at Fox News to create computer generated images of airlines flying into the buildings and distributed it to all the news outlets.
We also crashed an empty plane into that field, which is why there were no boddies….ah ha ha ha ha ha…..long live the New World Order!
The fact is that the US invading Iraq was just about the best thing we could have done for Osama bin Laden. We validated their stance against us to the world. We damaged our good standing in the world community, thereby damaging our communication and ability to put pressure on other governments (read Iran). We got involved in a war that is depleting our resources, which is exactly how they toppled the USSR in Afghanistan. Bush supporters have in fact been supporting the Terrorists by supporting this incredibly stupid decision. It’s just…so…..ironic.
re:”Can’t wait to catch the BBC show about President Dumbass getting assassinated. Yeah, I know that it’s a dramatization, but it will still make me feel good inside.”
Jimmy Carter is going to be assassinated?!
“So how can we get Apple and other manufacturers to be more green?”
Continue buying our products, we can use as much green as possible.
“Bush supporters have in fact been supporting the Terrorists by supporting this incredibly stupid decision. It’s just…so…..ironic.”
You are just soooo right-a-rooni. In fact, rather than fighting them we should negotiate with them. Perhaps if we give them something, like Israel, they will just give up that whole “all zionists and infidels must die” thing.
It is much, much nicer to appease evil, rather than fight it….Everyone now “All we are saying is give peace a chance….”
The sarcasm is barely concealed Pacifist, you tool. But I suppose when you don’t have a good argument you have to do your best to put words into the other guys mouth that you can argue with. So sad.
>So how can we get Apple and other manufacturers to be more green?>
Try green paint.
“The sarcasm is barely concealed Pacifist, you tool. But I suppose when you don’t have a good argument you have to do your best to put words into the other guys mouth that you can argue with. So sad.”
What, me sarcastic? I have plenty of argument, and facts, but would it change your mind? no, probably not. So I’d rather amuse myself than waste my breath.
Fact: Al Qeada has been decimated. There funds have been blocked, their leaders killed, and they have been forced into hiding. Does that mean that we have seen the last of them? no, Spain proved that, but it certainly helps.
Just checking in on you kids-now no crying-and if somebody gets hurt, you are ALL getting a whoopin’!
TowerTone….
I smell chum and chunks. Time to feed ’em a big bait.
Oh, and to throw in a little truth, the Russians beat themselves(?) in Afghanistan by not doing any of the things we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. They inflicted REAL torture, REAL destruction, and REAL terror on the masses, which is one of the reasons the U.S. aided the Mujahideen, including Osama. The fact that some were fundamentalist of the Muslim type and went on to overthrow the government has nothing to do with our support of them against the U.S.S.R. Now shake and make up.
Why the greenpeace hate? Are you guys a bunch of lawyers for large multinational corporations? Why else would you feel threatened by people who are not able to arrest or tax you? So a bunch of hippies feel so strongly about not raping the earth that they are willing to shout, honk, block, annoy in the hopes that in doing so they’ll make enough noise that the “i had no idea!” status quo will hear and think “hmm. maybe we shouldnt kill ALL the whales” or “you know, maybe i dont want my kid to be exposed to toxic lead levels”.
If you feel threatened by hippy zealots like greenpeace or ralph nader, then perhaps you NEED somebody to save you from yourself. So a bunch of greenies put out a list. woo. big news.
“Daniel Eran writes for RoughlyDrafted”
Enough said.
But leave it to MDN to dig this up
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” /> I think the Earth ran over their puppy or something.
Of course, Greenpeace is evil! Look at all the evil they are trying to do! ….???
But if it would have given Apple high marks and Microsoft low marks….well, the MDN promoting of this would be a bit different…
And guy that scribbled the “story” above is a Mac head fan boy – check out his site.
Credibility, what´s that?
From his web site – what a joke:
“Hi, I’m Daniel Eran Dilger in San Francisco, California. I ride a motorcycle and I like to work on art projects.
Current Projects
1.•my travel journal
2.•revamping RDM
3.•a weekly review podcast
4.•getting a new motorcycle “
MDN that is so sad that you even go to this dweebs site.
Birkenstock Hippy…
Obviously another candidate for the “Award for selective reading”.
Nobody said that planes didn’t fly into the WTC. So don’t put words into my mouth, you ignorant tight-ass.
What I said was that there were no links between Iraq and Al Qua’aida, which is the fact that was recently confirmed by the President’s recent admission to the Washington press corps.
Now, there’ll be some doofus who will now cite the ‘fact’ that Al Qua’ida had terrorist training camps in Iraq. True, there were possibly training camps (possibly Jihadist and situated to ‘service’ the conflict in Chechnya, more likely PKK) in the north of the country inside the sovereign borders of Iraq, however they were in the remote north of the country inside the no-fly zone where Saddam’s regime had no control.
The only people who have ever cited a link between the Baathist regime in Baghdad and Al Qua’ida are politicians, whilst intelligence bodies (CIA, MI5/6, DGSE, etc.) and military/foreign policy think-tanks all agree that whatever contacts there may have been failed to develop into a solid ‘business’ relationship because of mistrust and ideological conflicts. On that basis, it could be argued that Donald Rumsfeld had been more of a partner to Baghdad or that William Casey was more of a support to Osama bin-Laden.
It’s astonishing that such a large percentage of the electorate can continue to wallow in the ignorant misinformation that there was a direct link between Hussein and bin Laden, whilst the only common link (indirect as it was) was the neo-con defence and intelligence functions of the Reagan administration which was ‘fighting’ Iran and Soviet communism. It’s almost as if some Republicans are emotionally unable to deal with the two monsters that their choices have created.
We should also not forget that, in a breathtaking display of duplicity, Reagan’s administration also sold arms to Iran and then channeled the profits to a “terrorist” organisation (the Contras, favourite method of torture: skinning their opponents alive) whilst using the opponent-murdering, drug-running, drug-using, pineapple-faced Manual Noriega as a go-between.
All of these things prove one thing: that neo-conservative Republicans should not be allowed within 10,000 miles of American foreign policy.
How appropriate you chose Mondale as your “name”
G-Spank:
Yes, G-Spank, you may be correct “about some things sometimes”. I just haven’t read anything that you have posted that gives me confidence that you are.
Jimbo:
“Can’t wait to catch the BBC show about President Dumbass getting assassinated. Yeah, I know that it’s a dramatization, but it will still make me feel good inside.”
Oh, Jimbo, if only your violent and aggressive tendencies were focused on the terrorists I’m sure that we would all be so much safer. Have you considered developing the skills of killing for U.S. military or naval forces? You seem to be a natural. Here’s a hint, the pointy part of the knife is aimed toward the terrorist. The same goes for the round hole in the rifle.
Funny one Maczealot. Yeah, I should fight the terrorists over there or else we’ll have to fight ’em over here. At least that is what your boob of a president said. Of course, he’s said a lot of things. You can tell when he’s lying because his lips are moving. But of course, that’s when Cheney is doing the talking and pulling the little string on the back of Dumbya’s neck.
Yeah, Jimbo, no way in hell the terrorists can get to America. They’re too poor to afford plane tickets. Let’s do like Clinton did even after being attacked numerous times and pretend Islamo-fascism doesn’t exist. Afterall, the waters surrounding our country have kept us safe thus far.
I’m a Greenpeace member/supporter and they do a lot of fantastic work for the environment, but they screwed up big-time with this.
They were so far off the mark attacking our favourite fruity company, they’re not even on the same planet!
Sick ’em, Apple.
Greeneace are nothing but a bunch of watermelons. Green on the outside, red on the inside. They care more about advancing their political agenda using environmental rhetoric, rather than caring about the environment.
So the Greenpeace of sh#! story finally comes out. Apple has always been green on enviroment issues and Greenpiece just wanted the media attention and that’s all. Apple is doing well so naturally they have been setup as a target. I’m glad to see this one writer do some homework to bring out the truth. Obviously Green peace doesn’t do a very good job in finding the facts as they really are only to bend them so they can get some attention.
Krebs, Maynor, Ellch, Ou, Greenpeace; the bullshitters are coming out of the woodwork.
Cool, MacZealot. All you have to do is erase the stereotype of a “liberal” and read my posts from the standpoint of someone who honestly wants the best for this country, and my POV will make more sense.
Despite it’s many mistakes, Greenpeace has also done a lot of good and lest anyone be too quick to judge one need only look at the biased, misleading and unresearched accusations regarding Greenpeace on this page.
G-Spank:
Liberal or conservative, I’m a nonpartisan evaluator. Believe me, there is much about the current administration that I don’t like, it’s just that there is much about the liberal agenda I dislike even more. What I find disturbing is that because liberals are right that the war in Iraq is costing more lives than expected and dollars than desired, they casually and arrogantly assume that they are right about everything else. Not only is that thinking illogical, it is dangerous because it encourages irrationality and inflexible ideology.
I have a lovely bunch of coconuts.
It seems like “liberals” are the ones who are interested in conserving things these days – like our jobs, our middle-class, the lives of our troops, our tax dollars, our international alliances, the environment, our educational system, women’s rights, our civil liberties, and so on.
What are the “conservatives” trying to conserve?
TowerTone…
So, without any argument on the substance of my post, you decide to pick on my nom de plume.
It’s nice keeping Mondale’s name: after all, doesn’t it give you a warm feeling to remember a vice-president who was a committed public servant and who was never mired in controversies like having a conflict of interest between his corporate life and his public life and who never used his office to besmirch his opponents or (illegally) uncover the identity of a CIA operative.
On a less serious note, he’s also never managed to shoot someone while hunting for quail.
Jimbo:
“Can’t wait to catch the BBC show about President Dumbass getting assassinated. Yeah, I know that it’s a dramatization, but it will still make me feel good inside.”
Jimbo, you are sick.
Maczealot…
So just to be clear, you’re accusing liberals of being irrational and inflexible.
I would point out that we’re the ones arguing for more research to confirm or deny any number of theories, from climate change to stem-cell research. It’s the Religious RIght that wants to cling to fairy-stories to explain the existence of the Universe and wants to trust to hope and a fair wind regarding climate change.
Even the story you posted from the Australian newspaper wasn’t the beacon of hope that you wanted it to be: it said that the climate change anomaly may be held to +3ºC by the end of this century assuming the emissions of greenhouse gases could be held at current levels.
Well, pardon me for pissing on your firework, but +3ºC is still enough to put the Maldives under water and its still enough to do severe damage to the Great Barrier Reef.
And just to extinguish that hope further, let’s remember that the report requires greenhouse gas generation to stay static and the article mentions that Australia and the US (the two largest industrialised generators of CO2 on the planet when analysed from a tonnes per capita basis won’t sign up to climate change treaties and want China and India to do more to clean up their act.
Quite frankly, this is naive nonsense: why would the developing nations give up cheap power to build their economies when the USA and Australia have shown no commitment to environmental leadership in any way and – in the case of Australia – are generating dramatically more CO2 per head now than they did in 1980.
Quite frankly, both of these governments should know better: Australia is more than aware of what happens under unusual weather conditions and should put more of a value on its tourism industry. And I would have thought the the USA wouldn’t really want to lose Florida to rising sea levels, not to mention the fact that much of Manhattan (a lot of which is reclaimed land anyway) and Long Island will be at risk as well.
And what we still have to discover is whether the start of the climate change phenomenon is in sync with our activities or if its offset by 30 to 50 years. You’d better hope it’s the former.
I would have an easier time explaining the internal combustion engine to my 3 year old grandson. As you make claims about Cheney, you indicate you have no tolerance for reality. Why waste my time? Any of us could write a book of facts for you that would simply be called “false”. You have your view of the world where America is the problem. My view is that it COULD be the solution, if it could apply itself more to solving problems rather than fighting petty PR wars within its own borders.
Now you can insert your claims that I am unimformed, kool-aid drinking, Fascist, right wing neocon who favors death over cures. That will be because you have no clue how I view the world, what I view as right or wrong. Good luck with that pessimism.
hey Mondale
didn’t you hear that whole “uncovering the identity of a CIA operative” was a bunch of bull shit that was falsified and lied about, or do you not keep up with the news?
Get some education idiot!
OK, just to clarify, that last post was TO Mondale, not FROM him.
Mondale:
Since neither you nor I will be alive in 100 years, it is unlikely that we will observe the average global air temperature in 2106. However, I will gladly accept that your models have global validity if your current models can accurately and consistently predict the monthly average air temperature for the next 10 years in 1,000 cities, 5,000 towns, 4,000 villages, and 2,000 hamlets; 300 forests, 200 swamps, 3 ice fields, 150 prairies, 120 estuaries, 300 mountain tops, 4 oceans, and every layer of the atmosphere. Each major revision of the current model starts the monthly 10-year predictive process all over again, because we recognize that using incomplete and inaccurate models is both fraudulent and unscientific. Can we agree that any observed monthly air temperature that deviates more than +/- 15% from the predicted average monthly air temperature for more than 50% of sampled sites is evidence that the model is inherently inaccurate and imprecise?
I think that if evolution and intelligent design were contrasted and compared rigorously and objectively that the faults, fallacies, and futilities of the specious argument will be made evident, thus discrediting the other. To prevent the resurgence of false beliefs and pseudo-scientific ideas from permeating our schools and universities, we will need to remain committed to the task of continuously teaching students how to think by carefully examining the strengths and weaknesses of both evolution and intelligent design. Anyone who proposes that objective and open-minded interpretation of factual data isn’t the basis of modern science, is the best method of studying scientific processes, encourages correct thinking, and enhances the development of scientific understanding is fooling himself or herself.
What are the “conservatives” trying to conserve?
I don’t know….maybe the lives of those who would be……….
MURDERED BY TERRORISTS!!!
And by the way, do not think that just because they oppose the war (this week, most of them voted for it), don’t think they want to conserve tax money. Although the (supposed) conservatives are spending like drunken sailors, the dems are just as bad. And more than that, they want to RAISE taxes.
As for the middle class and jobs nonsense. Please explain why home buying and building is higher than ever? Please explain why unemployment is lower than ever. Please explain why average wages in this country are rising? Why is consumer spending up? Simple because of the wealth of the middle class. All of this is happening while we are paying for a war, and lowering taxes….go figure.
Also, the number of people moving from middle class to wealthy is also growing. Why can’t anyone ever look back and say “wow, we’re doing pretty good?
Think Straight
In order for things to be going “good” for libs, things must go “bad” for conservatives, even if it means bad for the country. And they wonder where we get the nerve to call them unpatriotic. But, my, the weather is nice here today!
“What are the “conservatives” trying to conserve?
I don’t know….maybe the lives of those who would be……….
MURDERED BY TERRORISTS!!!”
Wow, so you are a member of the “vote Republican or we’ll all be murdered by terrorists” platform.
Let’s see… one terrorist attack, five years ago, and we haven’t even gotten the guy who instigated that attack because we’ve been too busy fighting an utterly unrelated war in Iraq. If conservatives were truly trying to protect us from terrorists, we surely would have gotten the guy who caused 9/11 to happen by now, right?
Let’s see… one terrorist attack, five years ago, and we haven’t even gotten the guy who instigated that attack because we’ve been too busy fighting an utterly unrelated war in Iraq. If conservatives were truly trying to protect us from terrorists, we surely would have gotten the guy who caused 9/11 to happen by now, right?
Last I checked he is hiding out in caves somewhere, and hasn’t been able to do too much. We decimated his home base, killed most of his lead henchmen, and locked up many of his money sources.
Saddam Hussein was stopped due to the fact that he repeatedly ignored treaties we signed with him to end the last war. He ignored UN sanctions, and he supported terrorism. Even if you don’t want to believe that he had connections with Al Qaeda, he did repeatedly work with Hamas, providing money to the families of those who blew themselves up for ‘the cause’.
Perhaps you are more comfortable with him in power, and with him murdering his own people, and with him using professional rapists. I am not.
I don’t understand how people can attack our president for fighting true evil. Would you have been disturbed back in WWII that we fought against Hitler? After all what did Hitler do to America?
All right, Nick, I’ll play your game. It was not one terroist attack, it was many, dating back to Lebanon when the Marines were killed, who were not there for our gain, but to help in civil war torn Beirut.
It was not one man who attacked us on 911-it is an enrire organization headed by Osama that has been all but destroyed. Yes, they still have power, and they continue to be attacked.
Had the nation been focused on Islamofacist five years sooner rather than on a blue dress, this message could have been sent then.
I’ll tell you what I have told my friends and kids for years-
The Democrats will help you if you’re in a soup line
The Republicans will help you if you’re in the unemployment line
When we’re attacked-we all better get in line.
Firstly, Towertone…
Yep, America can and should be a beacon for scientific and social progress in the world. But – for reasons which I find unfathomable – it appears to have deserted reason for some neo-McCarthyite madness where we all need to look over our shoulder and be frightened of our neighbours and friends, whilst simultaneously taking an ultra-hostile view to anybody who questions the actions of the State as if silence and acquiescence are virtues of patriotism.
This was a hallmark of the neo-con influence in the Ford administration (Cheney quite blatently falsifying the threat of Soviet Russia by using the logic that “if we don’t know what they’re doing, they must be doing something of which we should be frightened, therefore we must increase military spending” – hmmm, sound familiar in any way?) and the Reagan administration (Casey [CIA Director] knowingly promulgated a myth that the Soviet Union was at the root of all world terrorism based on something he read in a book [!] despite being told by his CIA staff that the book itself was the result of CIA-planted disinformation/propaganda [!!]).
The result of the former were programmes like the Rockwell B1-B, which cost $28 billion to deliver around 100 airframes (remember this is 1984 money when $28 billion was real money). I personally love the B1-B from an aesthetic point of view [it really is a beautiful aircraft], but to say that it was an answer in search of a question is a mild understatement – a truth rendered more obvious by the fact that it has been converted (presumably at even more cost) to a conventional weapons role. $28 billion+ on Lancer is one thing, but SDI [another $40 billion+], MX [Peacekeeper, another $20 billion+] means that you could probably easily discover $80-$100 billion in defense projects that were predicated on logic that my mother would have used when she was alive.
Still, that’s just taxpayers money which has always been wasted and nobody (cynics that we are) expects any better.
However, the result of the latter were Iran/Contra (the latter being involved in cocaine production and smuggling), covert support for the Mujahaddin (who were also not above being involved in drugs running) and the the Executive branch providing cover for Contra-linked drugs dealers: if that’s your idea of a “high water” mark for standards and ethics for any country, let alone the country that should be a paragon for international behaviour, it really isn’t mine.
It’s the polarization created by this administration’s high-handed arrogance and unwillingness to concede errors by continually post-rationalizing its actions that have caused the PR divisions in the country.
Come back to the relative intelligence, sanity and pragmatism of GHW Bush’s administration (where Dick C and his motley crew didn’t have nearly as much power and influence) and an enormous amount of emotion would immediately leave the debate and you’d probably have a more united country; nobody says the USA shouldn’t defend itself or try to shape world opinion, but it should do so using logic, reason and proportionate response as opposed to myths, paranoia and a “you’re either with us or against us” attitude to foreign policy and alliances.
And let me be even more magnanimous: I don’t actually believe that GW Bush is an embodiment of evil and I’m willing to concede that his love for the country is sincere and heartfelt. However, the problem with the guy is that he’s hands-off to the point of absurdity with only the most abstract grip on policy details.
As a a result, people – most of whom have never had to win a public mandate and who have minimal empathy with the real concerns of the American people – have been allowed to influence public policy in a way that has fractured the country in the most extreme way for a generation.
You cannot be a real leader to over 290 million people and delegate the development and execution of practically every major element of domestic and foreign policy to people who are more committed to political or religious ideologies than they are to sound management of public finances or the maintenance of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or the rule of both national or international law. In short, there’s a difference between being a visionary administration and an administration driven by signs and wonders.
Mondale:
I would appreciate an equally in-depth analysis of liberal spending on “social programs” that have done nothing statistically significant to improve the lives of the poor, has encouraged laziness and dependency, has raised numerous generations of dysfunctional citizens, and has reduced the long-term financial strength of middle-income citizens though excessive taxation.
Also – just to prove I’m not a terrorist-loving liberal (not that I have to, but what the heck) – let me suggest another way in which terrorism could be defeated…
Given the strictures now placed on the banking (nearly typed baking there, which would have been surreal) community to monitor the funds being deposited into accounts, it should be increasingly difficult for Al Qua’ida to fund the various “projects” that local affiliates or franchises seek to inflict on America or its allies.
However, such strictures do not impact on the Hawala network of informal funds transfer agents which operates outside the conventions of the financial community.
Herein lies a flaw in the assymetric war on terror; if you want to deprive the cancer of Islamic terrorism of the life-blood of funding, your first step should be to identify those members of the Muslim community who are components in the Hawala network and either convince them that their actions run counter to the public good or warn them that – if they continue – they will be subject to continual examination by the tax authorities and security agencies in a way that will make their lives impossible.
I know that it has been argued that such an ‘attack’ on the Hawala system may cause a backlash within the Islamic community, especially as the devout cannot use ‘traditional’ banks because of the strictures on usury in the Qu’ran. However, it would take a minimal amount of imagination to get major banks to set up ‘Sharia’-friendly banking mechanisms as arms-length operations thus negating the need for the Hawala system.
This kind of intelligence-led operation would have been cheaper than the phony war in Iraq by at least an order of magnitude and would have yielded greater domestic security. It would also be more effective than the opportunities for financial intelligence afforded by the Patriot Act, which – as is the way with legislation – merely caters for the conventional rather than mechanisms which operate outside of such limits.
Damn, Towertone, now YOU got pulled in. I thought you recognized the bait?
It is funny, though, to start at the top of the comments section and see the argument progress to something completely unrelated.
This argument is futile and will not change the mind of anyone responding.
MW= Stage as in “the stage was set for a ridiculous comment and we were not disappointed”
There are 3 sides to every story! Yours, mine, and the facts!
What a fun time we’ve had under President Bush so far… Iraq war started over known false information (google for Downing street memo) with no exit strategy… Record national debt… Warrantless wiretapping (remember Nixon?)… USA torturing prisoners of war, Bush fights for our right to torture until his own stacked supreme court smacks him down… Bin Laden still not captured… Hurricane Katrina scandal… Libby indicted, resigns… President and Cheny knowingly compromised CIA agent’s identity… President pushes for constitutional amendment to ban gays from marrying, gets smacked down by predominately-Republican congress… Good times.
If we had a truly conservative President, so we wouldn’t be flushing our money, civil rights, and international relations down the toilet. We wouldn’t be pushing homophobic agendas into the constitution, we wouldn’t be trying to keep everyone afraid all of the time with our bullcrap national terror alert which has never been lower than “elevated – significant risk of terrorist attacks”.
It’s not that I’m against Republicans (I’m independent), but President Bush sure makes it hard to be proud of my country. I don’t give a crap which political party our leaders are affiliated with, I just wish they would demonstrate that they respected and loved our country, and I wish they would keep our long-term interests in mind. I’m hoping that, after 8 years of such a hideously embarrassing President, the Republican party will become more moderate again.
I know, Buckeye, but it is my birthday, and what the hell, MDN is on a deseved break, gotta read something after the local dead-tree edition of the news is finished.
And Mondale, I don’t dispute there are many fronts to fighting terrorist or communist. You can forever take small shots , like swatting at swarming bees, and you will have some success. But what many in the world have thought of the US and the West in general is that we can be attacked with only a small response, because we have lost our will, through laziness, to fight when attacked.
And as far as Iran-Contra, had the Democrats in the haouse and senate not cut the funding for these fighters, there would have never been that debacle. I say kudos to Ollie for pulling it off.
As for the McCarthey Myth, yes there was a witch hunt. It was blown out of proportion because the witches being hunted were in the media. Had they been poor southern white men, no one would have cared.
I agree the B1 is beautiful, they fly close to my house sometimes. The real beauty is the reason we DON’T need them for nukes. They did their job without ever dropping a single one on the USSR, which was pretty damn stealthy in of itself.
Enjoyed it, but gotta take the kids to see “Little Miss Sunshine”. After all, it is my b’day.
Maczealot…
I’ll tell you what, you argue the points on which you are passionate and I’ll do the same on my side. Otherwise, I’m doing all the work and you’re standing at the sidelines in a supervisory capacity throwing spitballs.
I agree that many social programs are incredible wastes of public money, however pork-barrel military programs can and have been nothing more than subsidies for industries and communities that could/indeed should learn to live within their means. Indeed, my landlord – a serving military officer – argues that one of the weaknesses of the US military is that it acts as a surrogate social welfare program that can have the effect of substituting quantity for quality.
Quite frankly, governments of every persuasion should – as far as possible – stay out of the day-to-day lives of their citizens. Equally, citizens should learn a greater sense of self-reliance and recognize that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
For both sides of this equation to be true would require a multi-generational commitment by both parents and the education system to inculcate personal and social responsibility.
Unfortunately, this massively exceeds the capacity of the lowest-common denominator value system that is a by-product of treating education as a political football for decades on end. Sadly parents – from all walks of life and all political persuasions – are equally to blame for failing to provide a strong moral/ethical framework by a variety of factors including (but not limited to)…
The breakdown of the ‘nuclear’ family: It is a sad fact that far too many families implode at the first sign of trouble and – as a result – simply fail to provide a stable and continuous guide to their children.
The inexorable rise of families in which both parents are forced to lead professional lives leading to a inter-generational disconnect.
The rise of “trendy” parenting where mothers and fathers try to (over)-compensate for not being sufficiently involved by either trying to be their children’s “best friend” or by over-indulging their children which leads to a false sense of how the world really works.
That said, I come from a background where you got a smack across the back of your legs if you behaved disrespectfully or acted outside of socially acceptable behavior and – whilst I’m not advocating un-restrained child abuse – I can’t help feel that parents are now forced to work with one hand tied behind their back if you’ll pardon the pun.
Towertone…
So your defense to the Iran/Contra thing is that Congress should have encouraged people who were involved in a massive operation to flood the USA with even more Bolivian marching powder and then dear old Ollie would not have had to act in such an underhand way.
Do you know anyone who’s had their lives or the life of someone they loved ruined by cocaine, or narcotics of any sort? Or do you just not care about the ethical considerations?
I’m not certain I can see the logic in that position…any more than I could see the logic in North’s original actions, the only plus side of which was to introduce Fawn Hall to the world.
Greenpeace is an enviro-terrorist-crackpot organization and should be treated as such.
Ignore them when they troll (like this), turn them over to law enforcement when they pull shit.
I’m surprised they haven’t dispatched their protest mobs to Apple HQ already.
Mondale, I like your approach and must say that I’d prefer a clear thinking individual such as yourself who’s willing to strike at the root of the problem. At least in so far as you’ve demonstrated with that Hawala example.
Problem is, the people who oppose Bush politically don’t speak with such specificity. Instead I’ve got Howard Dean running around spouting “We need a new direction.” That’s the same bullshit rhetoric behind John Kerry’s loss, “I have a plan!” What is the plan? WTF is this new direction? Bush can get away with slogans because he’s not the underdog.
As much as I personally dislike George W. Bush, Americans kept him in power and will continue to do so after the November elections because of the alternative. What’s to say the Democrats won’t return to that pre-9/11 way of thinking? We’re supposed to put our country in the hands of Charlie Rangel and Nancy Pelosi? America recognizes Bush is an incompetent moron but it’s the thought of Bill Clinton’s two terms of ignorance that make people select that Republican candidate in the end.
Y’all can keep on hating Bush, keep on underestimating them Republowkins and the people who vote for them (reminds me of GM and the way they regard Camry buyers). It’s not them you should be angry with, it’s the Democrats who don’t have the balls to rise up and take control. Until an individual such as Mondale up there can sit down in front of Tim Russert and clearly explain such ideas with a capital D next to his name, Rove will prevail. Only person I hear anything specific from is Joe Biden but you’ve got such a hardon for that bitch Hillary Clinton you’ll probably nominate her instead. Her or Al Bore.
Look at the islamo fascism rhetoric. Democrats can’t even speak up loud enough to refute this half assed theory. The two party system right now reminds me of the Faux News show Hannity & Colmes. The Republicans are big bad ass cowboy boot wearin’ block headed Hannity, spitting slogans that only look good so long as his lowly, tinny-voiced liberal sidekick permits instead of putting some lip balm on Hannity’s chapped lips.
If you ever ran for president though, Mondale, you might have my vote. Instead I’ll likely be casting my next presidential ballot in favor of Mitt Romney.
Middle America…
Unfortunately the problem with politics in practically every major developed democracy is that the suppliers (the politicians) have become too market-led (i.e. influenced by focus groups, contributions and negative advertising) to pursue anything that remotely resembles a personally brave or courageous stance.
If you want a Democratic candidate that provides more than just Howard Dean yelling like a deranged Bowery drunk, but more than John Kerry’s wooden, charisma-free rhetoric, the first thing that would be required would be to rehabilitate the Democratic Party on Capitol Hill and some democratic balance in the country as a whole; nearly fifty percent of the country, who voted Democrat in the 2004 Presidential election, have no effective democratic representation in either the legislative or executive branch.
In the near half-century since Eisenhower and the rise of the TV campaign, American politics has become progressively more polarized and a triumph of style over substance, with cheap rhetoric replacing substantive policies and personal invective taking the place of genuine debate.
The people who want out votes simply don’t put their asses on the line: they communicate by one mindless aphorism after another cowering to the culture of the thirty-second soundbite. Even worse, they seem to have developed a low threshold for risk by refusing to “perform” (like a trained seal) in front of any audience that isn’t completely filled by a carefully screened audience of gibbering disciples and their smiling kids.
I swear to God that if I see one more politician giving some bland speech whilst pictured in front of a hand-picked “audience” of happy, cheering children as a prelude or adjunct to another photo-op, I will vomit.
And the sad thing is: We, the voters, are to blame by not demanding more scrutiny, more commitment and more bravery from the news broadcasters. I want to see politicians put on the rack and made to justify their policies and their voting records, as opposed to having their egos gently stroked as they unveil their latest “hot topic” of the day.
We’re also to blame for not demanding campaign finance reform and outlawing soft money: there is simply too much cash being pumped into every level of the system for it to be healthy for any democracy.
BTW, thanks for the possibility of your vote – sadly, through an accident of birth (i.e. being British by origin) – I will be unable to take advantage of your kind offer.
Jeez, Mondale, your words there energized the hell out of me! I feel like fighting the power. Surely you have a blog, written a few books or something. Don’t tell me you’re letting that go to waste, held up only to be released through sporadic MDN posts whenever you get the chance.
Middle America:
You obsequious and sycophantic twit. Could you be any more ingratiating? Certainly, yours is the most pathetic panegryical prose I have ever read. I have never witnessed such a shameless display of fawning adulation, and I hope never again.
Maczealot…
I know I’m showing my ignorance here, but can you tell me what the hell panegryical means and how the heck you even pronounce it.
Also, can I use it in Scrabble?
Sorry, Mondale, the correct spelling is “panegyrical”. I was laughing with such intensity as I was typing that my tears obscured my vision.
“Panegyrical” is a word of the English language. If it is not an officially sanctioned word for Scrabble, it should be.
Mondale
Yes. My daughter. Nuff said.
I must have missed the part where Noriego was found to be an angel.
I guess Reagan should have sent our troops down there to put down Russia’s (via Cuba) beach head to North America. Then we could hear your dissertation on that mistake.
We are not always given a choice of good and bad as clear cut as WWII. We have to choose who we think promotes the principles (and yes, business) of America best. How were we to help Central America?
At the time I lived in Reston, VA outside of DC, where many Salvadoran, Costa Ricans, and Nicaraguans lived. I never met one that was less than grateful. I had three Peruvian friends who told how Shining Path and Cuba were funneling drugs for arms to fight in northen South America.
I met men in Special Forces, FBI, CIA and the Secret Service. State Department and Hill workers. Many were democrats (Reston is a bastion for them) but they all understood the importance of stopping Noriego. Too bad Congress was more worried about politics than reality.
TowerTone…
Noriega is part of my point, or did you miss the bit where the National Security Council of the Reagan administration effectively turned a blind eye to Noriega’s links to the Medellin cartel until as late as February 1998.
As you mentioned the Shining Path, it should also be noted that throughout his ‘tenure’ as a CIA asset, Noriega acted as a supplier of armaments to anyone in the region who had the money regardless of political persuasion or whether they were the elected government including the Shining Path and group in Colombia.
As for your comment of the clarity of choice, have you never heard of the precautionary principle? To a country with the intelligence resources of the US, It should have been obvious from an early stage that Noriega was a danger to regional stability and ultimately to the USA.
Can I also point out that it isn’t the United States’ “responsibility” to help any Central American country, especially when that help was unbelievably belated and asymmetrical. I don’t recall the US offering help to Nicaragua when Somoza was robbing the country blind, even when significant levels of aid (possibly as much as 50%) sent to the country to help it recover from the 1972 earthquake (to which I donated as a ten-year old) was embezzled by Anastasio Somoza. Or maybe the help wasn’t required then because American commercial interests were being served and it didn’t overly matter that around 1/6th of Nicaraguan deaths were due to contaminated water (WHO: 1968) which presumably would have been reduced if Somoza wasn’t such a crook.
All the US had to do was sit back and wait for ten years: Nicaragua got over the initial shock of getting rid of the Somoza family and the initial flirtation with the Marxist Sandinistas and has pretty much been dominated politically by the centre-right since 1990.
Instead US foreign policy failed to do what was truly best for the majority of the American people (as opposed to a small cabal of business interests) and, thanks to some monumental stupidity, threw gasoline onto the fire that was already America’s problems with drugs whilst simultaneously selling arms to the Iranians and propping up Noriega. Seriously, if that’s your idea of helping the region, what do you do when you’re trying to damage them?
Mondale
My mistake. I meant to say Ortega, not pineapple face.
We are not the world police to straighten out governments that are internally corrupt.
When that corruption spreads in the form of communism (loyalty to the state) or Islam (loyalty to Allah) with the intent to affect our interest then yes, we are required to protect those interest.
You don’t have to go back to Somoza for the stealing of charity. Look no further than the corrution that is southern Louisiana. This is not a distant land to me, I have family from there. The Feds were damned no matter what they did. Look at Mississippi, Texas, and Alabama, not to mention Florida where my kids lived until the four of 04 ran them off. They understand preparedness and responsibilty.
You act as if Nicaragua would have gone democratic eventually. I say that was too big of a risk to take. This was the 80’s. The USSR was still trying to expand before it collapsed on itself. We could not risk another Cuba. Had we known the Berlin Wall would fall for certain, then of couse, waiting may have been more prudent.
Also, you never know completely when someone comes to power what type of leader he/she will become. I admired Reagan but was not sure after Carter that he could pull off what he did.
Bush was my governor and a fairly good one but I had doubts he was prepared to lead the nation. I beleive in the man completely now. He has faults and makes mistakes, but I support his intentions and beleive them to be honest.
Bill Clinton was born and raised not too far from me. I did not vote for him, but admired him for getting to where he did and for sticking to his promises made campaigning(of which I disagreed with)
I don’t pretend to have the answers for the problems of the world. I do know that this country, with all of its greatness and problems, is one of the few places in history that not only helps its own, but tries to help others reguardless of differences. And when major problems arise that shape the world, for us to pass on trying to solve them, even if poorly attempted sometimes, would go down in history as America simply being selfish.
Now that we’ve dissected liberalism and conservatism, and bashed Bush et al, can we get back on topic?
Namely, the Greenpeace report evaluating high tech companies on their chemical policy, as well as this most recent MDN report that quotes at length a blog written by one Daniel Aran.
Here is my response to Aran’s commentary:
It seems that Daniel Eran has scored an own goal in this post – calling attention to himself while only undermining his own credibility.
1. What exactly is Eran’s expertise in environmental protection and chemical policy? From the “About RDM” page, there are exactly zero relevant qualifications or experience mentioned.
2. What exactly is Eran’s expertise in journalism, the search for and reporting of the facts? None, it would seem, at least based on this article. (E.g. there is no comment, and no evidence that Eran even solicited any comment, from Greenpeace, HP, Dell, Lenovo, Nokia, all of whom were mentioned or discussed in the article.
3. Is Eran a neutral, dispassionate observer who can help arbitrate disputes? Not in the least. Eran makes his biases clear when he writes about the Brent Spar incident, and the Tubbataha Reef incident. For the record, these were maritime events that have exactly zero relevance to chemical policy in high tech industries. Eran’s bromides against Greenpeace, and activism in general, clearly indicate that Eran is a partisan, and not a neutral observer.
4. Eran then attempts to present “The Facts” as he sees them. (But remember, he doesn’t have any qualifications or expertise in chemical policy, nor is he a neutral observer.) Even here, Eran fails to separate subjective matters of interpretation from objective matters of facts. Nor does Eran cite any sources for his “facts”.
5. There are three fatal flaws in Eran’s claims that “Lenovo’s actual efforts to recycle are grossly undercounted”.
First, Eran provides exactly zero facts to back up this claim – not even a link to a Lenovo report or comment.
Second, Eran seems to think that because Lenovo’s ThinkPad product are sold to businesses, and businesses have “professional staff” and “frequently upgrade systems on a fixed cycle”, that therefore “Business are far more likely to recycle their equipment”. But Eran presents no evidence for this claim. And even if he has evidence, he seems to confuse “recycle” for “replace”. Most businesses do indeed replace their computers — but they do so typically by reselling them on a secondary market or returning them to the leasing company, which then resells it on the secondary market.
Third, Eran undermines his credibility by dismissing as “self congratulatory grandstanding” the act of companies having “published policies and timelines for phasing out specific chemicals” Eran completely fails to understand that such specificity and transparency is invaluable, because they form the basis for accountability, both now and in the future.
For example, Dell currently has (a) published a complete list of chemicals it intends to replace, (b) listed what replacement chemicals will be used, (c) how the supply chain will be modified to support such chemical replacement, and (d) the timeline (2009) within which this is all to occur. The value of such specificity and transparency is clear: Groups like Greenpeace and others can assess how seriously Dell takes this subject, and these groups can follow up as Dell’s timeline (2009) approaches to see how well Dell actually measured up.
Why Eran seems to dismiss specificity, transparency, and accountability as “worthless” is not explained.
6. Eran’s next major criticism is the ostensible “omission” from the Greenpeace report of “the reality of market regulations”, but Eran then fails to provide evidence of any such “omission”.
Specifically, Eran talks about the Energy Star program, but this standard focuses on energy efficiency and is mostly irrelevant to chemical policy.
Eran then writes about the European Union’s Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS), but here cannot document his claim that Greenpeace omits “the reality of market regulations” — because the Greenpeace report does indeed mention RoHS: One of the key criteria for evaluation is phasing out brominated flame retardants (BFRs), which includes those on the RoHS list. (Greenpeace claims the RoHS list is incomplete and wants additional BFRs replaced.)
Greenpeace also includes the OSPAR “List of Chemicals for Priority Action” from 1998.
This is clearly NOT a failure of omission, despite Eran’s initial claim. The Greenpeace report includes as a major criterion the very same “market regulation” that Eran claims Greenpeace is omitting.
(continued)
(continued from previous post)
7. Eran’s seems to take umbrage that HP’s ranking is “Good”, but Apple’s ranking is “Partially Bad”. He quotes from the web sites of both companies in an effort to show that HP only “has a goal to meet the RoHS requirements this year [2006]”, whereas Apple claims it “was able to meet many of the RoHS restrictions long before the July 2006 deadline”. Eran’s conclusion from these statements is that Greenpeace was “smoking” something because it ranks “Apple ‘Partially Bad’ but HP ‘Good'” under Chemical Management.
What Eran fails to notice is that Apple and HP’s statements show that BOTH companies failed to meet the RoHS requirements in their ENTIRETY. Eran also ignores Greenpeace’s conclusion neither company has any PVC-free or BFR-free products on the market today (except for some peripherals).
So what is the real reason for Greenpeace assigning different Chemical Management ratings to HP and Apple? The answer is evident from the Greenpeace reports: HP is more transparent and Apple is not.
Specifically, HP has published “A substitution timeline, with substances identified by stakeholders as materials of concern”.
In contrast, Apple “provides only examples of substances that are on its Regulated Substances Specification 069-0135, but the Spec itself is not publicly available.”
Of course, we already know how little Eran thinks of specificity and transparency, so presumably this won’t impress him. But to those who actually want to hold companies accountable for their actions, such published information is invaluable.
8. Eran’s final criticism is that Greenpeace is ostensibly that Greenpeace is choosing “Convenient Metrics”. Specifically, Eran claims that HP “is not recycling nine times as many of their PCs as Apple manufacturers [sic], every year”, and sarcastically questions whether HP is “doing more” for the environment than Apple.
Some possibly faulty math aside, Eran clearly is confusing a relative metric (percentage of product recycled) with an absolute measure (the unit sales of HP vs Apple). All he is saying is that HP has a much larger volume of unit sales than Apple — which hardly comes as a surprise to anyone familiar with the computer industry.
The real comparison, which Eran seemingly does not understand, is which company is recycling a greater percentage of its unit sales for any given year – whatever volume that may be, and whatever the average life span of the individual products?
With HP, we know the answer: approximately 10% of HP’s units sold are recycled at the end of their useful life.
With Apple, we do not know the answer: Apple only reports the total weight of chemicals recycled in any given year, and not the proportion this represents of sales.
Greenpeace’s point is that unit volumes and product life spans do vary from company to company, and reporting total weight recycled tells you nothing about how much is left to recycle. A metric based on percentage recycled, however, gives you a basis for comparison and ranking, after taking into account both unit volumes and product lifespan.
9. Lastly Eran asks “Why didn’t Greenpeace consider the quality and resultant lifespan of products entering the market?” According to Eran, if Greenpeace had done this, then HP and Dell would be at the bottom, and “premium vendors” such as Lenovo and Apple at the top.
This is false on its face. Greenpeace did indeed incorporate the lifespan of products into its preferred metric:
“Ideally, Greenpeace wants companies to report on recycling volumes/units based on the sales in year x (average age of the product when it becomes electronic waste).”
Note that last figure: “average age of the product when it becomes electronic waste”. This is, in fact, the lifespan of the product.
Greenpeace gives an example: “So, if the average age of a HP PC when it becomes waste is six years, we want HP to report how many PCs
(units or weight) it recycled in 2006 based on sales of PCs in 2000 as a percentage.”
Source: http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/greener-electronics-ranking-c.pdf
The point is that Eran’s claim simply is false – the preferred metric that Greenpeace wants is indeed incorporates the very factor that Eran says he wants.
(continued)
(continued from previous post)
Conclusion:
Eran mentions time and again that Greenpeace “didn’t really employ any factual, investigative reporting or actual comparisons based on merit”. He further accuses Greenpeace of “half-assed googling” that results in “a laughable conclusion” , and he disparages Greenpeace as “acting as another Apple parasite”.
A review of Eran’s article, and a careful comparison to what’s actually in the Greenpeace’s report, show that each of Eran’s charges has no evidence and is without merit.
Furthermore, Eran has no stated expertise or qualifications in the relevant areas of environmental policy, chemicals management, or journalism.
Rather, the most charitable interpretation is that Eran, like many other bloggers, freely mixes strongly held opinions with some facts, which adds up to some (possibly) entertaining reading for those who already hold similar opinions.
For those who want a more credible, independent review, look elsewhere.
Back on topic:
Your magnum opus reminds me of students that pad their papers with words and use double-spacing to add “weight” to their argument, assuming that the increasing number of pages of text or profusion of words somehow adds substance to their efforts. Rather than serving the reader “food for thought”, you offer a hearty serving of undeveloped hypotheses, anomalous assumptions, and unsubstantiated conclusions.
Back On Topic:
Congratulations, you have summed up your argument perfectly:
“For those who want a more credible, independent review, look elsewhere.”
Maczealot:
Do you actually read anything posted here? Or you do just parrot the party line and sling insults at anyone who disagrees with you?
My post was not padded – it was a point by point examination of each of the arguments that Daniel Eran made.
I read the Greenpeace report, and I read Mr. Eran’s post. I had no agenda when I started reviewing his article.
I gave Daniel Eran’s post every benefit of the doubt.
But under scrutiny, each and every one of Eran’s points evaporated: he has no independent facts of his own, he has no expertise of his own, and he merely offers opinions and assertions in their place.
Mr. Eran didn’t even try to solicit any comment from Lenovo or HP or Apple or Greenpeace, or any other party he wrote about. This alone is a fundamental and basic failure of journalistic practice.
But he’s a blogger, you respond, not a journalist. That’s fine, I have no problem with blogs. But then why should MDN or anyone else take a blogger’s word for anything? MDN should have been more careful to find a more reasoned and neutral party, rather than Mr. Eran.
I didn’t insult Eran – I took his work seriously, and scrutinized it accordingly. I could not find anything in his post that would back up his accusations, nor did I find anything convincing that undermined the credibility of the Greenpeace report.
And that’s what I reported. If you disagree, feel free to write a reasoned, point by point response.
“Yep, America can and should be a beacon for scientific and social progress in the world. “
We are.
“But – for reasons which I find unfathomable – it appears to have deserted reason for some neo-McCarthyite madness where we all need to look over our shoulder and be frightened of our neighbours and friends”
Complete non-sense and rhetoric. I neither look over my shoulder, nor am I frightened of my neighbors. During the McCarthy years, people were called communists, and black-balled from society. Please show me the parity here?
“whilst simultaneously taking an ultra-hostile view to anybody who questions the actions of the State as if silence and acquiescence are virtues of patriotism.”
Hmmmm, seems to me there are plenty of people not being silent about there opinions against the actions of the state. As far as I know, nobody has been treated with “Ultra Hostility”. The only people that have showed ultra-hostility toward Amercian citizens are the terrorists.
“Herein lies a flaw in the assymetric war on terror; if you want to deprive the cancer of Islamic terrorism of the life-blood of funding, your first step should be to identify those members of the Muslim community who are components in the Hawala network and either convince them that their actions run counter to the public good or warn them that – if they continue – they will be subject to continual examination by the tax authorities and security agencies in a way that will make their lives impossible.”
Except for one little problem. Thus far you can’t even get many of the Muslim religious leaders to even condemn terrorism or the attacks. Why would you think that they would comply to this? As for penalizing them, we can’t even get our government to profile muslims do to political correctness. This would NEVER fly.
Back On Topic:
I suppose I could devote the better part of my afternoon to critique your diatribe toward Daniel Eran, but I really haven’t the time. Nor do I have the desire to provide you with any advice about constructing a well-developed argument. This is something that you should have learned in school. Besides, I don’t think that my opinions matter to you in the least.
I shall never regain the minutes of my life wasted reading your post. Wait, I will give you one piece of advice, “Get used to criticism.”
Back On Topic:
“Do you actually read anything posted here””
Yes, painfully, yes.
Maczealot:
“Nor do I have the desire to provide you with any advice about constructing a well-developed argument. This is something that you should have learned in school.”
I ask for a reasoned response, and I get … more ad hominem attacks?
“Besides, I don’t think that my opinions matter to you in the least.”
If you back your opinions up with facts and reasoned discourse, I still may not agree with you, but I will most certainly respect the integrity of such an argument.
“I shall never regain the minutes of my life wasted reading your post.”
Sorry to know that my effort, and your time, was wasted.
Let’s not waste any more. Let’s let this thread die. It seems to have outlived any useful purpose.
Okay, now more Apple stories devolving into partisan politics.
You MDN guys are stoopit if you think that this kind of tit for tat is amusing or informative. Not at all related to Macs as computers or iPods…
News flash – geeks on Apple fan site solve world problems… pictures @ eleven.
Last thought: Daniel Eran is deleting comments from, and banning outright, people who are posting comments on his blog.
No, these comments didn’t include any abusive language, or racist rants, off-topic diversions, or anything like that. They were on-topic, reasonably and neutrally written, and responded to posts made by Eran or by others commenting on his blog.
It seems Eran doesn’t like it when people disagree with him, and post comments to that effect.
But it is his blog, so he gets to ban people as he pleases.
Best wishes to you, Mr. Eran.