A while back, I wrote a piece about how the military is ignoring the anaphylaxis of climate change skeptics and pursuing a core strategy of going green. To keep up with all the latest and greatest at the DoD and their green endeavors, check out this link. Pretty cool, huh? Man, they've got a lot going on there!
A recent column in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune shows that there is another segment of our society that isn't listening to the climate change skeptics either: Business.
Problem is, for the skeptics -- business leaders didn't get the memo.Business isn't waiting for politicians to act. Sustainability has moved from the tributaries of society into the mainstream of commerce. CEOs "have a number of stakeholders that are pushing them in this direction," says B. Andrew Brown, partner and regulatory affairs department head at Dorsey & Whitney LLP. "Customers, investors, employees, even banks and insurance companies."
Management is learning that an embrace of sustainability is a rich strategy in an intensely competitive global economy. It offers another approach to risk management (just ask Mattel's management about the cost of recalling millions of toys manufactured in China and tainted with toxic lead paint).It's also a way to lower costs and boost efficiency.
Many of my regular readers know that I spend a fair amount of time ripping the business community. I have to admit that this article was a welcome surprise and is, without a doubt, another example of my happiness (dare I say glee?) at being wrong. So who are these companies embracing this new core strategy?
Take Wal-Mart, the controversial retail giant. Five years ago, then chief executive Lee Scott launched Sustainability 360 with three major goals: Using 100 percent renewable energy, creating zero waste and selling sustainable products. With 2005 as its baseline, for instance, a Sustainability 360 goal was to hike fleet fuel efficiency by 25 percent by October 2008. It rose 38 percent instead, cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 200,000 tons a year and saving the firm more than $200 million a year. That's real money, even for a behemoth like Wal-Mart.
I've never been a fan of Wal Mart but you have to give them props for this. Wow.
Who else?
Sustainability is a driver of innovation within companies like Dow Chemical and General Electric, creating new markets and profit centers. Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are betting big with an eye toward earning a payoff from clean-tech innovations.
Global investment in clean energy of all kinds rose from $46 billion in 2004 to $200 billion in 2010.
As I have been saying all along, there's a lot of money to be made in green tech and it looks like we have a lot of private businesses paying attention.
The best part about all of this, though, is how the free market is actually leading the way. The article's overall tone is that business isn't going to wait for government to come up with a solution. Honestly, they'll be waiting a long time as long as the current form of the GOP is around although it is pretty hilarious to see that not admitting fault/winning the argument trumps making money with them and their supporters. I guess I was wrong about money being the most important thing to them. Clearly, it's pride.
So that's two things I'm wrong about. Seriously stunning.....:)
41 comments:
My entire consulting practice (Process Automation for Legal) is predicated on removing waste and inefficiencies with paper based forms and paper records. There has been a huge push for green initiatives for a long time but just now the technology (and legal policies) is making headway like never before. No mandate from the government, just intense competition and the need to drive down costs of administration. The Great Climate Fraud has had some positive results in that it raises awareness overall of conservation and the new technology available that saves $.
Last in Line mentioned Cap and Trade in another thread. As long as the trend mentioned in this post continues, there's is no need for it whatsoever. My view of government has always been that it's needed in several key areas because people are...well...people. They suck.
But if businesses lead the way like this more often and can be trusted to do the right thing, our debate on here is moot as far as I'm concerned. I'm about solving problems. I don't really care how it happens. This is a win-win-win-win. It keeps us competitive in the world, reduces security threats, saves $, and reduces greenhouse gases.
I'm skeptical of man-made climate change, but I have absolutely no problem with businesses and individuals electing to "go green" on their own initiative. We do it in my household.
Eliminating wasteful practices in a business as well as in the home is a good thing. If, however, someone chooses NOT to adopt that kind of lifestyle, I have no problem with that either. Kinda have a thing for liberty.
And that's where you and I part ways, my friend.
Your view of people is that they ..."are... well...people. They suck."
That is not my conservative viewpoint at all. I've met a lot of people, and the vast majority don't suck.
But you have this belief that all people suck like you secretly think you do?
And that's where you and I part ways, my friend.
Dick Cheney notoriously said, "Conservation is a sign of personal virtue, but is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
This dismissive sound bite was always a red herring. No serious energy policy analyst ever suggested that conservation was the only way to solve all our energy problems.
But many people seemed to take Cheney's statement as a green light to waste as much energy as possible, drive the biggest cars they could afford, accelerate as fast as possible from green lights and brake as hard as possible at the last possible second. They seemed to delight in tweaking liberals' sense of outrage at their sheer wastefulness.
Conservation is also a sign of public virtue. During WWII everyone pitched in to save rubber, gas, nylon, scrap metal, and just about everything. We've been fighting one or two wars since Cheney made that statement. Yet he and the Bush administration did almost nothing to encourage conservation or develop alternative sources of energy that would have made us less dependent on the very countries whose people have been waging terrorist attacks on us.
We can conserve energy AND develop new sources of energy that will make us independent of unstable regimes, dictators and Islamist monarchies. Conservatives have been foolishly blocking this two-track policy for decades.
Why? They like to pretend that they're defending our freedom to be wastrels. But the truth is that conservation hurts the bottom line at oil companies. And that's who's been paying all the bills for the Republican party (and Cheney's "deferred compensation" while he was vice president, something that seemed like a terrible conflict of interest).
Why are so many conservatives so dead-set against public policies that encourage conservation? It's the patriotic thing to do. It can make this nation cleaner, healthier, richer and more free. If we could increase our energy efficiency and develop new sources of domestic energy we would no longer enrich countries like Iran, Venezuela, Iraq, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Yemen, Nigeria and the like. And we will find ourselves less likely to come into conflict with countries like China, as fossil fuels reserves are exhausted over the next 20 years.
Ignoring the Cheneyhatred, I don't entirely disagree with you.
I question the exact numbers you may choose to use regarding oil company campaign donations. Which may also explain my total disdain for R vs D antics here.
But to respond to your last question, I have to ask another question:
Which conservative are you talking about that is dead-set against conservation?
Public policies don't "encourage" conservation; they MANDATE it under threat of fine or imprisonment.
Why are so many conservatives so dead-set against public policies that encourage conservation?
Why are so many liberals comfortable with policies that encourage mass murder?
http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/PDFs/GrandJuryWomensMedical.pdf
Yet again, M displays his utter ignorance of the arguments laid before him. I've got no problem with any green initiative any company (or person) undertakes. If that is what they want to do great. If they truly believe they are saving the planet, it doesn't matter. That is exactly what liberty is all about - doing what you believe suits you best.
What is not liberty is demanding, with the full weight of govt, that everyone does so because you believe it is necessary.
At least blk properly frames his argument - virtue versus wastrel. That isn't about evidence of climate change, is it?
Which conservative are you talking about that is dead-set against conservation?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2009/0422/earth-day-glenn-beck-celebrates-by-cutting-down-trees
I think he and Rush are outliers, though. In the case of conservation, there are plenty of conservatives that talk the talk and walk the walk. It's man made climate change that send them into anaphylaxis. There is a difference.
Why are so many liberals comfortable with policies that encourage mass murder?
There's a big difference between what he did and 1st term abortion, wouldn't you agree? Clearly what he did was murder. But is it life in the first few weeks of conception? A zygote? And embryo? I can't say for sure, can you?
What is not liberty is demanding, with the full weight of govt, that everyone does so because you believe it is necessary.,
And this is where your pathological ideology betrays you. Just because the government tells you it is necessary, doesn't mean that it should be rejected out of hand. As I have been saying all along, you want to live by the rules you like and ignore the ones you don't like, citing government overreach and force by the butt of a gun. Quite silly...and adolescent.
Why are so many liberals comfortable with policies that encourage mass murder?
There's a big difference between what he did and 1st term abortion, wouldn't you agree? Clearly what he did was murder. But is it life in the first few weeks of conception? A zygote? And embryo? I can't say for sure, can you?
So what?
The left has fought tooth and nail against any limitation at all of abortion. But that's a side issue.
The left (and you personally) have spent years demonizing anyone who expects government workers to be held accountable when they decline to do their damn job as "having a pathological distrust of government".
The left (and you personally) have spent years demonizing anyone who expects non-whites to be accountable under the law to the same degree as whites as "racist".
So the left (and you personally) have spent years telling the Pennsylvania DoH that not only do they not have to enforce the law on this guy, but that they can expect to be demonized and vilified if they do. In addition, you've spent years setting the example for this guy to believe that the law shouldn't apply to him, because that would be racist.
You've sown the wind, now reap the whirlwind. This is a direct result of Democrat policies.
I think you are painting with a pretty broad brush. There are plenty of liberals that are pro life and plenty of Republicans that are pro choice. In many ways, it's not a right left issue any more. The problem has always been one of eliminating unwanted pregnancies. These can be greatly reduced in two ways.
1. The left needs to give up on Roe V Wade and let it go back to the states. There may be a few states that will outlaw it but most will keep it legal. This will change people's behavior and, if it is illegal in some states, maybe they'll take some fucking responsibility for a change.
2. The right needs to get off their high horse about fucking. People do it. Get over it and start handing out condoms in church. Family Education needs to occur at all levels of socialization, not just the government. Enough with the prudish attitude. You don't get to tell other people how to live their sex lives. If you are that serious about babies being killed, do what it takes.
No doubt there will still be some unwanted pregnancies if both of these items transpire. It will be up to each state to figure out how to deal with it. The point here (lost on liberals) is that if it does go back to the states, the national organizing principle for pro life has been taken away. It is anathema to conservatism for one state to tell another state what to do. At this point, we will be able to see who offers the best solution to unwanted pregnancies and use it as a model.
That's my solution. What's yours? Enough with the hellfire damnations. Come up with a solution.
I'd hazard a guess that most of the libertarians here are pro choice. Am I correct?
As I said (and you blatantly ignored), that's a side issue.
For decades, you have given this man every reason to believe that if he was caught, the left and the ACLU would rush to his defense, solely because he's an abortion provider and is not a white person.
For decades, you have given the people at the PA DoH every reason to believe that if they let him get away with it, it wouldn't even cost them their jobs, much less result in jail time for conspiring to cover up the actions of a serial killer.
On the other hand, for decades, you have given the people at the PA DoH every reason to believe that if they arrested him, they'd lose their careers, be publicly vilified, and possibly have to worry about having their lives threatened, their children stalked and their homes firebombed, solely because he's an abortion provider and is not a white person.
Enough with the hellfire damnations.
Fuck you. Tell it to all the people (among them you) who spent a week and a half slandering Sarah Palin.
This is just too good! First, M addresses me with And this is where your pathological ideology betrays you. and not two comments later (to someone else) I think you are painting with a pretty broad brush.
Your hypocrisy is truly awe inspiring. If you had even an ounce of self awareness (for all of your self touted navel gazing) you would have to laugh - yet you never seem to laugh at yourself that way. I suppose such is life without a sense of shame for oneself - only for any and every thing external to you. Weird Al should recast Terry Stafford's Suspicion for you - as "Projection".
Just because the government tells you it is necessary, doesn't mean that it should be rejected out of hand.
I damn sure will when no evidence is offered - just someone's fucking cheap moralism. And that is exactly what this is all about. It is what everything is about with you and the nannies of the left. Hell, it is all but indistinguishable from the worst excesses of right-wing fundamentalists. No wonder you rage so about the right - you must, at least subconsciously see yourself in them.
As I have been saying all along, you want to live by the rules you like and ignore the ones you don't like, citing government overreach and force by the butt of a gun.
All govt operates from the basis of force. You seem unable to understand that. The whole point of govt possessing the monopoly on force seems to escape you, not me. While I may seem adolescent to you - you haven't even got out of diapers yet in my view. You fear liberty - for yourself and therefore for anyone else. Everyone - back to the womb!
Dammit, blogger ate another. M would you check the filter again please?
Jackpot, this says it so well. Please read until you actually understand what it says. I will make the possibly unreasonable assumption that this is such a result is possible.
You say "you" anon but it's not me if you are a supporter of state's rights. If I lived there, I would've called for his arrest as well. I live in Minnesota and have no right to say what folks in PA do with enforcing the law. Do you live there? And 'fuck you' isn't an answer to the solution of unwanted pregnancy. You can continue to yell at me if you want but had this issue been addressed and solved properly, this would have never happened in the first place.
Juris-what a fucking drag about comments. All apologies once again. I thought I had it fixed but we keep having the occasional spam comment. I'll stay on it.
Good article. Of course, a mention of Max Weber always warms my heart. I think I will turn it into a post and hope (probably fail) to finally get my point across.
First, thanks for digging out my comment.
I'm glad a mention of Weber warms your heart, but I will be more impressed when it does something to your brain.
Note that your immediate response is not to understand it, but to counter argue. Wondering if you are going to contradict the statement of Weber's quoted therein.
You say "you" anon but it's not me if you are a supporter of state's rights.
But it is you who has spent years claiming that government employees shouldn't be accountable for their crimes in the same way private citizens would be. For recent examples, look at your own attitude toward the MMS' involvement in the BP oil spill and the SEC's involvement in the Wall Street meltdown.
And it is you who has claimed that non-whites shouldn't be held accountable for their crimes to the same degree as whites. You can find examples of that nearly anywhere, an obvious one being your attitudes about illegal immigration.
Given the attitudes you've expressed for years, I can only assume that the only reason you're not defending him is because the issue is so politically toxic. If it weren't for that, you'd have a blog post up today ranting about how "obviously fucking racist" his arrest is.
And 'fuck you' isn't an answer to the solution of unwanted pregnancy.
Your slanders weren't an answer to anything either, but you sure didn't let that stop you. Even having your own President ask you to stop didn't slow you down.
It's not my duty to come up with solutions so you can devote all your time to slandering people.
If you don't like being treated with contempt, maybe you should have thought of that before you put so much effort into being contemptible.
It also doesn't help your position to know that, according to his voting record as a Senator, if this guy had just shoved those babies off into a corner somewhere to die from lack of care instead of killing them outright, your current President would have been okay with that.
Juris-I'm not countering the article. I've only read it once so I need to review it a few more times before I have a more informed opinion. What I am countering is your immobility. Take an honest look at our time together. Who do you think has been more open to having "something done to their brain"....me or you?
Anon-when have I claimed that non whites should not be held accountable for their crimes? Illegal immigration is a much larger and more complex issue than that. I'd be happy to discuss the issue with you but we won't get anywhere if you offer black and white solutions. We passed that point a long time ago with illegal immigration.
I'm not defending him because what he did was wrong. There is no other reason besides that. I'd like to see unwanted pregnancies go away. I'd like to solve that problem and this horrible event brings us further away from a solution. Your anger is blinding you from seeing one which is really too bad because it can be solved.
Because it is your duty to come up with a solution. It's mine, yours and everyone else's duty in this country to solve this problem. There are very few people in this country who are 'Pro Baby Killing'. Everyone is against unwanted pregnancy, though, and how we reduce that is where the debate should start. So throw out some ideas. Raging away at me and liberals isn't going to solve anything.
Regarding your attack on President Obama.
It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html
Sadly, you have fallen for a classic maneuver...'Make the Liberal Look like he's a baby killer.' The bill that was put before him was pure bullshit designed to trap him into either voting against reproductive rights or looking like a baby killer. This is the kind of crap the right does all the time rather than actually working to solve the problem.
You believe what you want to believe because you are pissed off. No problem if you want to continue believing that President Obama left babies to die in the corner but that would be a delusion, not an opinion.
M, I am quite aware of my political beliefs. You are not - as you are always confusing them either with right-wing conservatism, or anarchist phobia of all things govt. I get very tired of that, and when I get tired of repeating a simple concept for the 433rd or more time, I get cranky. Lately I've been very cranky here - because no one ever fucking listens (and comprehends). They don't even ask questions about what I've said - they argue about things I didn't say (like I'm the only person immune to marketing). They just rant on about those evil "others", i.e. anyone who doesn't sing from the same song book.
I will say it once more, if you would admit when you are arguing a position of faith, I would let your argument stand unchallenged. There really is no challenging such a matter - you simply believe it or not. It is when you insist that you are arguing reason, logic and evidence (aka "critical thinking") that I challenge you. Once again, the simplest case of this is being fucked over by the rich, either for their profit or mere amusement. You have posited this numerous times. If you will simply say "this is what I believe with no need for actual evidence", I would let it go. But as long as you insist it is more than faith, I will demand more than waving of hands as evidence. If this is pervasive, and happens all the time, to all manner of people - then tell me how it happened to you. After which you might explain why some rich are exceptions to this rule (as you seem to allow), and on what basis.
>I get very tired of that, and when I get tired of repeating a simple concept for the 433rd or more time, I get cranky.
You are more patient than me Juris. The Loughner go around convinced me that Mark isn't likely to discover logic any time soon, and, more accurately, will resist any such attempts to point out logic when they contradict his desired conclusions. As DJ was fond of saying - when the monsters get close, he'll just disappear and act like it never happened.
Is it worth it?
You guys still aren't getting it, are you? Mark is actually the one being logical here and accurate when he says that it's no wonder you are trying to control the narrative like this. Take away your red meat and you guys don't have a leg to stand on.
Sadly, you have fallen for a classic maneuver...'Make the Liberal Look like he's a baby killer.' The bill that was put before him was pure bullshit designed to trap him into either voting against reproductive rights or looking like a baby killer.
Your own link supports my point, if you actually bother to read it rather than just cherry picking what you want and ignoring the rest.
Anon-when have I claimed that non whites should not be held accountable for their crimes?
I'm not going to bother to go back and find and pull quotes, because you've already proven that if I did I should expect "that's not the same at all" responses from you, just like the identical use of bullseyes and "targeting" by Democrats was somehow "not the same at all" as bullseyes and "targeting" from Republicans. I may as well be talking to Ahmedinejad for all the chance I have of getting an honest debate.
There are very few people in this country who are 'Pro Baby Killing'.
Yes, I noticed how you immediately moved the goalposts by specifying first trimester abortions in your first response. Do you know what the difference is between what this "doctor" did and what is known as a "partial-birth abortion", which liberals have defended for years? About an inch, that's what the difference is. If this guy had snipped those childrens' spines while the feet were still in the birth canal, the left would have defended him.
Meanwhile, here's some light reading for you to think about:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/257730/ho-hum-horror-editors
You believe what you want to believe because you are pissed off.
It's not anger, Mark. It's contempt.
Mark is actually the one being logical
Would you all make up your minds? M has said that logic isn't enough. He surely isn't much into providing evidence (nor are any of the rest of you). So maybe you should pull your head out of the reindeer shit and pay some attention.
Take away your red meat and you guys don't have a leg to stand on.
In other words, you won't engage in good faith. I notice you don't answer questions, or read what someone opposed to you actually writes. You just run your fat stupid yap like most of the other 'liberals' around here. Fuck that is tiresome.
It's not anger, Mark. It's contempt.
It's worse than that. You won't even offer a solution which says to me a couple of things.
1. You aren't intelligent enough to come up with one.
2. You don't really want one because this issue is great to keep people angry and hating the left. Take it away and what do you have?
I've offered my solutions above and am willing to discuss the complexities of this issue. For example, do you support termination in cases of rape or incest? Why or why not? If abortion is somehow made completely illegal in this country, how do you suppose that's going to affect the infant mortality rate? Currently we rank 33rd in the world.
What about the law of unintended consequences? Imagine an entire generation of unwanted and unloved children. Abortion is legal now and we still have too many. Worse, under your ideology, no government programs would be allowed to support them, correct?
You won't even offer a solution...
You're right, I won't. Which says something you can't seem to grasp. I have a memory.
You see,
In other words, you won't engage in good faith.
I knew that before he posted it. I remember the last time "immigration reform" came up, and the Democrats demanded amnesty as a precondition of it. Of course, once they got their precondition, they somehow couldn't manage the time to actually do the reform, which set us up for where we are now.
I see the same pattern in a lot of things liberals do.
So no thanks, I will decline to offer you a solution. It will only serve as notice of what you're trying to stop from happening. Sorry, I'm not going to hand you extra ammo. I've found this out about debating solutions with liberals. Don't even mention it until you have the authority to enact it over their objections, otherwise you just give them more time to get in your way.
Just like trying to negotiate with Ahmedinejad.
Hmm, Mark is now a religious fanatic who wants to wipe Israel off the map? You have not been reading this blog long. I thought we were talking about abortion but now it's immigration reform? I see a lot of smoke and mirrors masking what is likely a lack of intelligence as Mark says above. There was no "demanding" amnesty. It's called being realistic.
Apparently Jeff is just as incapable of reading and comprehending the words that are written as Mark is.
I have to wonder, are they misreading and misrepresenting on purpose, or is there some psychological block that prevents them from actually reading simple English and comprehending that which is written?
"Just like trying to negotiate with Ahmedinejad."
What part of that is incomprehensible, Guard Duck? Ahmadinejad is the President of Iran unless something has happened recently and I missed it.
Santa,
Anon wrote 175 words, 7 of which referred to Ahmedinejad. The other 168 words were talking about how Mark or the left in general do not negotiate in good faith.
He then sums up that lack of good faith in negotiations with a comparison of a person who also does not negotiate in good faith - Ahmedinejad.
Both Jeff and you apparently utilize English as a second language since you are utterly incapable of comprehending the very simple idea and example as presented by anons post.
Let me make this simple enough for you both to understand:
Anons post was not about Mark being Ahmedinejad.
Anons post was about liberals refusal to negotiate in good faith, just like person x who also refuses to negotiate in good faith
So, liberals don't negotiate in good faith. Sort of like Al Qaeda? Or Commies? Classic demonization. Anon concluded with "Just like trying to negotiate with Ahmedinejad." Those are his/her words. As Mark says continually, you seem to have a problem with words repeated back to you.
I think the right's idea of negotiating in good faith can best be summed up in a recent quote by Mitch McConnell.
"If the president is willing to do what I and my members would do anyway, we're not going to say no."
In other words, we'll talk if you will just go along with what we say. Another voice in my head, I guess.
Likely the issue here with Anon is he or she knows that his/her solutions will be met with the facts of reality. It's easy to be angry...much harder to solve problems. I would point those obstacles and, as is usually the case, Anon wouldn't like them (emotional reaction). Then there would be more screaming about how liberals don't negotiate in good faith and are "like Ahmadinejad." (please note that unlike other posters here, I have not criticized either Anon or Guard Duck for their spelling error).
I leave comments open so you're certainly welcome to scream all you want about liberals being baby killers. But until you offer honest solutions, you look pretty foolish to me...sort of like someone who doesn't want any. Or doesn't know any.
Hmm, you are right Mark.
I was just copy+pasting Anon's version because it was easier than spelling unfamiliar phonics.
A quick google search showed 6.8 million results for Ahmadinejad and 900,000 for the way Anon and I spelled it. While we weren't the only to make the same mistake, and while often letters can be used differently when transcribing from a different alphabet, you indeed were right. As well, I thank you for your restraint in not playing spelling nazi.
I think the right's idea of negotiating in good faith can best be summed up in a recent quote by Mitch McConnell.
Yo M, do you think I am Mitch McConnell?
If not, then why the FUCK would you bring him up in response to MY comment about the lack of good faith (again, monumentally demonstrated by NOT answering a single point from my post, but instead by bringing up the non-sequitir of someone who doesn't give a shit what you think) on the part of liberals in these parts. I mean, does it get any better then in denying that you don't engage in good faith that you do so precisely by adopting a tactic of bad faith?
Who the hell do you think you are fooling, other than yourself of course.
Guard Duck, as you can probably tell, I'm horrible with typos and spelling. So, people in glass houses and all...
Why would I, juris? Because you sound just like him with your negotiating in good faith drivel.
It's hard to get past the brick wall that the right has on both undocumented workers and abortion. Again, it's not a good faith/bad faith issue. It's them not liking what I have to say.
Because you sound just like him with your negotiating in good faith drivel.
If you don't want to be accused of not arguing in good faith, then simply make a good faith engagement. Read what is written to you, and ask questions about parts you don't understand or that you think need refinement. Explain your own positions when questioned - provide examples. The really funny thing is that you take umbrage at the use of an unpleasant allusion - and then turn around and do the exact same thing. Talk about sandbox behavior!
Or, simply admit that you are a zealot preaching beliefs that have no basis in critical thinking. I could accept that - can you?
You see, your words have officially been linked to Mitch McConnell and his words are apparantly easier to dissect and argue against than yours.
No last, I will not be reduced to a voice in M's head.
Post a Comment