Democratic Forest Trusts (PDF)in Watson, Alan; Dean, Liese; Sproull, Janet, comps. 2006. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress Symposium; 2005 September 30-October 6; Anchorage, AK.Democratic trusts with leadership elected by citizen-members promise to solve many of the problems afflicting both traditional government and corporate ownership of forestlands. This article explores these issues in some depth.Complexity and the Dream of Human Control of Eco-Systems (PDF)in Watson, Alan; Dean, Liese; Sproull, Janet, comps. 2006. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress Symposium; 2005 September 30-October 6; Anchorage, AK.The title captures it. I then explore the kinds of institutions compatible with both nature and the modern world that are implied from this analysis.Rethinking the Obvious: Modernity and Living Respectfully With Nature (PDF)The Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophy, Winter, 1997.Modernity is usually considered a wrong turn in terms of respect for and sustaining the environment. I argue the reality is more complex, for modernity has freed us from personal dependence on agriculture, ended the economic value of children, radically reduced the likelihood of large scale wat, and shifted much production to intellectual rather than material capital. This partially decouples society from nature, which gives us important opportunities as well as problems.Towards an Ecocentric Political Economy (PDF)The Trumpeter, Fall, 1996.This paper begins my effort at showing how liberal modernity can be harmonized with an ecocentric perspective on our relationship with the natural world. It is a corrective to much “free market environmental” literature that sacrifices Nature to money as well as to anti-liberal attacks by well-meaning but economically naïve environmentalists.Unexpected Harmonies: Self-Organization in Liberal Modernity and Ecology (PDF)The Trumpeter, Journal of Ecosophy, 10:1, Winter 1993This is my initial paper exploring how what I term ‘evolutionary liberal’ thought can be an important means by which society and nature can be brought into greater harmony. The other Trumpeter papers build on it.Deep Ecology and Liberalism: The Greener Implications of Evolutionary Liberalism (PDF)Review of Politics, Fall, 1996.Liberal thought and deep ecology are usually regarded as mutually exclusive. But the “evolutionary” tradition offers a way to integrate the two through commonalties in the work of David Hume, Michael Polanyi, Arne Naess, and Aldo Leopold, providing a stronger foundation for liberalism while strengthening the case for an ecocentric ethic.(Related subjects: Ecology)Saving Western Towns: A Jeffersonian Green Proposal (PDF)in Writers on the Range, Karl Hess and John Baden, eds., University Press of Colorado, 1998.Developmental pressures in the rural and small town West involve three groups: long term residents, new arrivals, and environmentalists. Today their interests often conflict. This conflict is in part the outcome of institutions which prevent harmonizing competing interests. The concept of developmental trusts, both for rural regions and for small communities offers a means whereby these interests can be harmonized for the benefit of all concerned.(Related subjects: Politics)Social Ecology, Deep Ecology, and Liberalism (PDF)Critical Review, 6: 2-3, 1992.Murray Bookchin is considered a leading radical environmental theorist. However, his analysis is incapable of leading humankind towards a more respectful and sustainable relationship with the natural world. Criticisms of Bookchin from both the deep ecology and evolutionary liberal perspective complement one another, pointing the way towards a better understanding of how modernity relates to the environment.The paper as a whole offers an early discussion of issues that are more clearly addressed in later papers, particularly Deep Ecology and Liberalism (1996) and the three Trumpeter articles in 1997, 1996, and 1993. However, there are other ideas in the article which have not been developed more thoroughly elsewhere.
When I did a couple of blogs a while back, here and here, on ‘conservatives’ as having, on balance, not really advanced far beyond a tribal identity, some of my readers got upset.
Try these recent gems of wisdom regarding how ‘conservatives’ see the rest of us. We really have a serious problem in this country.
Salon reports on a recent Fox News’ morning show, “Fox and Friends.” Brian Kilmeade, the show’s host, and two colleagues were discussing research done in Finland and Sweden, showing people who stay married suffered less from Alzheimer’s. Kilmeade was skeptical, saying, “We are — we keep marrying other species and other ethnics and other …”
His co-host tried to shut him up, but failed. Kilmeade explained “See, the problem is the Swedes have pure genes. Because they marry other Swedes …. Finns marry other Finns, so they have a pure society.”
Ignorance and bigotry on such a scale gets you big bucks on Fox News. Lots of people watch this show and call themselves ‘conservatives.’ Not all would agree with him, but a lot would.
Then there is ‘conservative’ NPR Ombudsman Alicia Shepard, who refuses to allow the word ‘torture’ to be applied to American actions identical to actions by other governments which she defends calling ‘torture’ because by definition, Americans are different from other people. Glenn Greenwald explains that during an interview
She also said — when the host asked about the recent example I [Greenwald] cited of NPR’s calling what was done to a reporter in Gambia “torture” (at the 20:20 mark) — that NPR will use the word “torture” to describe what other governments do because they do it merely to sadistically inflict pain on people while the U.S. did it for a noble reason: to obtain information about Terrorist attacks. That’s really what she said: that when the U.S. did it (as opposed to Evil countries), it was for a good reason. Leaving aside the factual falsity of her claim about American motives, Shepard actually thinks that “torture” is determined by the motive with which the suffering is inflicted.
For a 21st century American to say this is idiocy, tribalistic idiocy. I know of no more accurate words to use.
Finally, since ‘conservatives’ claim to love our country, defend democracy, and all the rest of the good stuff, here’s Rush Limbaugh on American democracy:
The Monday after the recent military coup in Honduras. Rush Limbaugh said:
“So we’ve got hell breaking loose in Honduras. You know what we learned about Honduras? We learned the Obama administration tried to stop the coup. Now what was — the coup was what many of you wish would happen here, without the military.”
Then on Tuesday, describing Obama talking to troops about the withdrawal from Iraq, he said:
“This is a guy who sought their defeat.”
Limbaugh is one of the only people the Bush administration gave the right to regularly broadcast to our troops in Iraq. So he is a significant force in influencing how they see the world.
On Wednesday, he elaborated:
“This is Barack Obama, who led from the United States Senate his party into doing everything he could to ensure the defeat of the U.S. military. … This party was doing everything it could to impugn and dishonor the military.”
On Thursday Limbaugh was more explicit:
“And if we had any good luck, Honduras would send some people here and help us get our government back.”
Anyone remember how critical ‘conservatives’ were of the Dixie Chicks when Natalie Maines said she was ashamed George Bush was from Texas?
with thanks to Dave Neiwert’s wonderful work exposing the problems we have with a disloyal opposition. These people are moral thugs, fortunately usually without the courage to act out their fantasies, but unfortunately more than willing to encourage those who do.
UPDATE
The overt racism of Pat Buchanan and Rush Limbaugh are discussed today – Friday – by JoeConason at Salon.



posted July 9, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Rush actually said, “And if we had any good luck, Honduras would send some people here and help us get our government back”?
Get our government back from whom, exactly? The voters? Perhaps Limbaugh hasn’t got the memo: Obama WON the election. Unlike Bush in 2000, and quite possibly in 2004.
posted July 9, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Sing it Makarios!
I’m in the choir behind you on this one.
posted July 11, 2009 at 10:35 pm
No better are our “Conservative” government, who are in power even though more than 60% of the population consistently votes against them Harper should change his name to fiddler, he constantly plays Bush juniors tune, even now, hoping, maybe, please God, that George will be his “friend”.
I’m ashamed that our Prime Minister thinks he’s from Texas.