Replies

Of course nomenclature is important in classification. I'm surprised that you are not acquainted with "watermelon". Green(environmental) on the outside, red(socialistic) on the inside. Environmental morphs into environmental justice and becomes linked to social justice.

Those you mention in regard to seperating their garbage are known as the "self-decievers". The fact that curbside recycling is an economic net-loss to the environment is well documented most notably by libertarian Lynn Scarlett, former President of the Reason Foundation and now working in the Bush administration as Undersecretary of Policy and Budget at the Interior Dept. But you see, curbside recycling makes these people feel good about themselves. With that in mind, they could alternatively be called the "feel-gooders", which would make the a sub-set of the do-gooders".

Those that think that the un-attended forest will revert to pristine are known as the "benign neglectors".

I'm afraid that my previous grouping "Capitalist" is lacking. It is possible the the "capitalists" should be a sub-group of those that have an economic self-interest in promoting environmentalism. The Teamsters could hardly be called an environmental group yet they joined with environmental and social justice groups in the lawsuit over the environmental inpact of admitting Mexican trucks to the US, which would impact the earnings of the individual teamster and the political power of the Teamster Union. Another sub-group here would be the the NIMBY who really cares nothing about the environment but is opposed to development because of a percieved loss of his property value.

Perhaps I have opened a can of worms that would be best left to someone with 7 researchers and a $75,000.00 budget.

Thanks for the watermelon explaination. As I read it I remembered having heard it before. Perhaps it was a senior moment (that I have from time to time).

My main thesis in categorizing has been that the democratic party is made up of a diverse group without common concerns. They are joined primarily by a desire to govern from the left. So you have envrionmentalists of all stripes joining minorities, illegal immigrants, homosexuals, jews, and out and out socialists. Of course their common agenda was to fleece the country's wealthy and mooch. The environmentalists are a strange ally in this group, because they don't get much out of socialism. No socialist country took care of the environment, so much of what they do is on faith. (The kind of faith Michael Crichton is talking about.)

Then you get strange results like the Sierra Club voting to remain neutral about unfettered immigration, when immigrants are stressing the social fabric and the environment. Likewise you see Nader running for office and stripping enough votes from Gore to hurt the democrats because the democrats are not strong enough on the environment.

Finaly you have clear thinkers like Carri-Okie proposing market based solutions to the environment which environmentalists cannot even look at for fear of disrupting the coalition.

Another sub-group here would be the the NIMBY who really cares nothing about the environment but is opposed to development because of a percieved loss of his property value.

The only argument I have with this statement is the "perceived" loss of property value. Environmental impacts can have a REAL effect on property values. I, for one, would be extremely opposed to having a lead smelter constructed behind my house. I believe it would make the value of my property negative; I would have to pay someone to take it off my hands!

Certain forms of Nimbyism is acceptable... it is the Nimbyism that is based in ignorance, bad science, or elitism that should be condemned.

Just a slight addendum to your "7 researchers and $75,000 budget". Here in the Sheeples Republic of FloriDUH, an ex colleague said that he wouldn't bother with a grant of less than $1,500,000.

And this transparently veiled socialist was tenured faculty at Gainsville, not Harvard.

Inflation has hit even the Grove of the Academe. Well, in this case, arguably the scrub brush of the Academe.