| | The other day, I read something that mentioned "green banking". Really? (I think Dr. Austenfeld would have a brilliant criticism of this.) So, what makes banking "green"? - I assume (by the popular definition) that this sort of banking must be efficient (non-wasteful), environmentally friendly (???), not contributing to climate change, etc. (We love online banking - is that what they mean?) And I trust that my bank(s) recycle; and I can only hope they don't order styrofoam coffee cups for their employees, oh and non-fair trade, nonorganic coffees (probably made in America though!) Does anyone really prefer Maxwell House coffee? I can't even imagine...but it would probably be someone who isn't "green" and who puts waaaay two much creme and sweetener (probably unnatural) in his or her subpar coffee. (And I don't even know if the employees of Maxwell House are unionized, but they probably are - because they make terrible coffee.)
Ouch.
Anyway: banking is banking is banking, and perhaps some of what has, over the past several years, passed for banking should not be called banking at all, but rather: government scamming, or simply: fraud. And an apple is an apple and should have never become a genetically altered, chemically sprayed, prematurely picked, gassed and waxed piece of "produce".
Putting "green" or "smart" or "organic" in front of something to reassure that the thing is in fact the uncorrupted thing, rather than passing off the chemically altered, subpar, and potentially criminal as legitimate competition - well, it's just WASTEFUL.
Additionally, un-"green" employers should admit upfront that they don't recycle, that they order styrofoam (and overpay for it at office supply stores!), that they are not green. We do not need "green employees" dispersed from new "green industry" (lordhelpus) running tattle-tale-ing tabs on everyone's ungreen activities. Why create unnecessary new [non - or, rather, anti-] industries when we can destroy old corrupt ones? Here's a new "green" idea: instead of hiring a bunch of people to "be green" - the FDA and the EPA could actually stop politicking and do their jobs: protect us from all the chemicals and hormones and garbage that is making everyone sick - by declaring them ILLEGAL. Oh, and our wonderful government could also help by not continuing to pour millions into development of new chemicals (pharmaceuticals, industrial/ agricultural chemicals, etc) - in addition to subsidizing industrialized farms - which happen to be some of the nation's biggest polluters and users of harmful chemicals. Of course, if you ever accidentally ingest any of these, before you induce vomiting, you may just spend a few moments researching federal grant offerings - this is likely to produce the same reaction.
We all want to live in a "green" world - a world that is free of harmful chemicals and corruption. No person should ever think that he or she cannot afford "organic" - that they must purchase the chemcially-laden subpar version for his or her family. All food should be organic - and not because it is certified by some special organic certification or the FDA, but because it is what it is: an apple, a cut of meat, a box of cereal, a carton of milk.
I remember a particular children's message at our church in Tulsa: the children's teacher put a drop of green food coloring in a clear pitcher of water and asked the children if they would still be willing to drink it. And, of course they didn't want to drink it. (I've heard a similar example with dog doo and chocolate chip cookies).
Anyway, it is ridiculous to think we can make a better, cleaner, healthier world just with a smattering of "green" prefixes - especially when the artificial green food coloring and doggie doo is already mixed in (and has been for years).
Declaring war on doggie doo,
|