Change the expression to "follow the agenda" and you will automatically find the money.
The people with the most money are the ones most motivated to defend their agenda.
Like the Christian man who is hauled into court for beating his kids. He says, "I have to because the Bible says, "Suffer the little children to come unto me." They will be spending a lot of time with Gee-hay-zus if I have my way about it."
He had an "agenda" and nobody is going to prove him wrong because his zealotry won't allow him to change his mind.
It can be summed up mathematically like this.
A = Agenda
B= Money
C= Zealotry
A + B = C. Works every time. If you have a bunch of zealots, and bunch of money there is a fairly good chance there is an Agenda in there someplace which is there for no other reason than justifying the money and the zealots.
Sometimes those with lots of money can be found working for two or more agendas. Sort of like 'hedging your bets."
In other words, "I support Agenda A, because I think they will make the most money, If, however it appears that Agenda B might prevail in the long haul, I will put a little money down on it too, just in case." Sometimes the "long shot" pays the best, so it is ok to put a coulple bucks on it just in case the $100 you bet on the favorite turns out to be a loss.
In horse racing it is Win-Place-Show any one of which will return to you varying amounts of money depending on which position and how much you "invest" and the odds. In any case your choice to support a particular animal probably has little to do with how happy you are that somebody is taking the time to give him a little exercise, or how somebody is gathering up all the road apples to grown rice in Bengladesh or to turn into alternative fuel for your car. You simply want him to run the fastest, or at least fast enough to come in at least in Place or Show.
So, if you have the money, why not invest some in Exxon Corporation, but also in Greenpeace and the manufactures of solar panels and bio-fuel auto engines? Even if one or two go belly up, you've got you're money hedged in the other one.
What is your agenda? Is it continued use of fossil fuels. Sure. Is it "Save the Rain Forest" Sure! Is it "Green Fuel? Sure. Why not! One of them is bound to win. Which one wins is irrelevant so long as I personally win.
Don't confuse "agenda" with "ethics" or "morality" or "doing the right thing,"
The issue is really "profit." no matter what your agenda.
yes problem is in todays world we have to many zelots and not enough logical thinkers-
ReplyDeleteCouldn't get the quote thing to work. Tim said:
ReplyDelete"Don't confuse "agenda" with "ethics" or "morality" or "doing the right thing,"
The issue is really "profit." no matter what your agenda."
My comment:
Oh my Tim! Not all of us are forming our opinions based on stock portfolios!
But I do have to admit part of my opinion of wanting to find renewable energy sources was very much reinforced last year when the gas prices were so high.
ReplyDeletetim is right though
ReplyDeletelook at solar enery no one did much with it untill the price of oil went way up then there was a profit to be mad in solar panels and voila
Yes, when it reaches our pocket books we wake up.
ReplyDeletefast huh
ReplyDeleteIn my copy of the book starting on the bottom of page 531 through the middle of page 533, Crichton uses an example of tribal cannibalism to graphically show us his opinion that there are reasons we have become industrialized and good things about the fact that we have progressed as humankind in general. I always think of "back to nature" as being better than the plastic way we live. Yet this example makes it clear that pristine is not always better. I think he could have done it less violently by having our heroes chewed on by mosquitoes instead, but did any one else have any thoughts on this part of the book?
ReplyDeletePeople that advocate back to nature well let see- you sit in the middle of a medow with a talow candle and a sheep skin for a clock or dress no wait all the animal rightists say no we also can't do that to our animals -my point is back to nature just isn't realistic or will you give up your warm home and your job cause if you do not have a car etc. you cannot walk to work no clothes no food no manufacturing no electricity-well so on and so on-
ReplyDeleteI like my creature comforts to much to be totally back to nature. But I don't think it hurts to avoid some things that have progressed to the point they have lost their meaning.
ReplyDeleteoh sure there is a lot we could all do to help nature and things like save water and repect nature actually over here they are really greeners sometimes they go to extremes though
ReplyDeleteRespect is a good word in reference to this topic isn't it?
ReplyDeletedefinitely if humans had more respect for their environment things wouldn't get so terribly out of whack-
ReplyDelete