The environmental issue has a hard enough time being heard without further negativity. Alone such deeply misguided organization as ELF (Earth Liberation Front) could stop its message of conservation in its tracks. The main and continual problem is trying to strike a balance between human progress and green conservation. The latter doesn't bode well when it's number one dependance on survival is putting up so much resistance -- that being humanity. (In future posts I will attempt to show why much of humanity doesn't have an overly high regard for nature.)
I need to make it clear that there is a certain amount of inevitable environmental degradation to occur for the sake of human progress. But politics and power (the "greed" factor) are consuming the Earth's resources faster than what environmentalists and conservationists consider healty. (It should be noted as a clarification to the "wackos" tag many environmentalists are branded, there are some striking differences between environmentalists and conservationists. In relation to the supposed "wacko" label, todays environmentalists want to protect and place restrictions on human land involvement without any bargaining. Conservationists tend to want to use what land is necessary for human benefit while maintaining as much of its original existence. Of course there are variations to this, and not all members of each category should be lumped into what I'm about to talk about.)
I was listening to the independent conservative radio host Michael Savage Show one day, and right off the bat he was talking about listening to Rush Limbaugh's program. After about four minutes of listening, Savage turned the station, saying he couldn't handle listening to the "Spokesman for the Republican National Party." I too have started to feel this way with conservative hosts in general. That if a host is never wrong than they have their own agenda. It's the most basic and literally only criteria I can use to gauge political talk show hosts by. I generally listen to all the syndicated conservative hosts to get varying points. But by no means can I wholeheartedly trust any one of them because of their agendas. I allow myself to listen providing I know conservatives, too, have egos, ideology, and 'an investment to protect'.
Anyhow, the point on the environment I'm finally trying to make is Rush is using the same basic tactic from 10 years ago, which is to lump all the environmental greens in to the "wackos" department. His first book, "The Way Things Ought To Be," has been refutted in several instances here. To say this or any other examples I will use is enough to convict of course is not sufficient. Otherwise by now Rush would have confessed to the public. The point is to ask conspiracly: Why do conservative radio hosts hardly, if ever, shed some positive light on the good environmental causes taking place? I believe I've found that answer by accident from Frontpage Mag, a conservative news source:
Elder: "This is a political question, and you may not want to answer it. Why do you suppose the Republicans have such a black eye about the environment?"
Singer: "I think it has to do with the fact that the green organizations tend to be oriented toward the Democratic Party. It's as simple as that. It's been this way now for many, many years. They have been strong supporters of Al Gore, and they simply haven't forgiven George Bush for beating Al Gore."
In essence; as the Left will continually denounce Bush's war on terrorism for the sake of the DNP's agenda (and risk the peoples national security), so will conservatives on environmental issues because the subject largely sits within the DNP. The issue has very little to do with what's best for the environment. Rather, to acknowledge the other party is to give in and say they are right.
Conservative radio host Dennis Prager once said, "That in order to brainwash, one must be isolated." What Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives of the medium have achieved is trumping conservations message by pushing their listeners with the continual message of green "wackos." If you repeat over and over an ideology enough, one will start to believe in it. Just look at the abominable acts in the name of a la, or in Korea where anti-Americanism speeches are broadcasted through speakers in town squares. Many places in the Middle East and Korea have only one source of news information for the purpose of pushing an ideology. Radio does the same, but with a different subject.
Even local Twin Cities "Garage logic" host, Joe Soucheray, sounds like one continual blanket of environmental bad mouthing. Nearly everyday he is pulling up negative stories on the environmentalists (and rightly so in many instances.) The problem is so much of it comes from the same conservative machine that hinders the positive, logical elements of environmentalism. Essentially making the topic an after thought to the listeners. And this is precisely why conservation in general will continue to lose to America's capitalism. (The three C's: consumer>consumption>capitalism.) It is in direct conflict with America's capitalistic system of 'use and throwaway', 'supply and demand'.
The main way to make environmental issues recognized by the mainstream is not to force laws on to people (who have a long history of taking change slowly), but by making the principles beneficial and practical to the business market by way of financial credits to those companies who choose environmentally sound practices. This is the friendly green handshake to the market world to encourage more participation. Unfortunately even some of these ideas do not seem to be overly welcome to conservative media because of the war between them and the "wackos."
Dennis Prager aired his program on the 2005 Electronics Show from the Las Vegas Convention Center. Dennis was pleasantly enjoyable in a bubbly kid way over the new technology being displayed. It' was also interesting to hear for the 'hungry minds' crowd. But my inner being tells me, without trying to shed the "doom & gloom" of environmentalism, that while technology itself is important and useful on one level, it is also impractical and wasteful on another.
Dennis was beside himself over a nifty new electronic notepad that can translate ones handwriting in to readable text for those who cannot type. (Whatever happened to a pencil and paper?) This is the same person who talks of television as one of the great moral wastelands in our technology age and then openly supports video game electronics because this will keep children away from the boob tubes harmful rays. (Are video games not empty calories, too?) Yet, mysteriously, this isn't mentioned as one of Dennis' unconstructive activities.
The only conclusion I can come to with these conflicting examples is conservative media has a vested interest in exposing the bad environmental efforts while not reporting the positive efforts. (I have a feeling there are not going to be many hosts who are willing to tally the "+/-" ratio from their environmental talk archives.) And my personal assumption is while Dennis Prager is not necessarily "the voice" for the Republican Party (Rush Limbaugh's ratings taking that honor), he is one of the voices for America's consumerism. Unless politicians suddenly favor the peoples interests before special interests, I have a hard time believing Mr. Prager speaks in front of a Senate Committee free from hidden obligations.
His article on the commercialization of Christmas is a powerful defense for preserving the holiday while still not satisfying my understanding that 'the more standards are commercialized, the less significant they become'. It is common understanding in the arts that the more "pop" the art, the less affecting it becomes over the long haul. So while Dennis is correct in preserving Christmas for the sake of memory, it also could be argued that the holiday needs to be recreated to its original religious tone, first, and gift giving, second. This strikes me as a powerful case for the holiday from a Jewish host, and less powerful from the same host who doesn't celebrate the holiday to begin with.
How consumerism has trained us in our thinking is in order to feel better about ourselves, we must continually buy a fresh supply of products. Not change the inner being of ourselves and chose practical products while living simply within ones means without the excess (not none) of
"Conservation" and "conservative" are two words that not only sound alike but have similar values. Conservative ideology is based in the preservation of our Constitution. Conservation is based in the preservation of our natural heritage. Yet it is the conservative media who is continually reporting the bad while environmental organizations are supported by liberals. Even Dennis Prager has said openly he is liberal outside his core conservative/religious values. It is because conservatives are heavy pro-capitalists, and even any mild opposition to this is labeled with "wackos" or "anti-people." This would seem to further suggest that environmental principles take a back seat to partisan agenda's of ideology and the mighty dollar.
Two of the great losses of our time is reading and exploring nature (aka "nature walks"). Reading's loss is attributed to the advent of television, and nature partly because of technology, and partly because 80-90 percent of America's population resides in the metropolitan area. The further away populations are from nature, the further their appreciation for it becomes.
The other concern is ideological: The general population lives for today. Environmentalists tend to live for tomorrow. I'm for the latter because we might need our Earth a little later. The beauty, though, is whether you're for, against, or in between, America offers you the freedom and right to decide for yourself.
Rush on the Environment
The Way Things Really Are
RL: 10 of clubs
Rush Limbaugh is wrong as usual
Rush responds to the debunking/FAIR's counter response to Rush