Why do conservatives hate science and environmentalists so much?
It has been happening for decades. Hateful -smears, verbal attacks, and death threats from conservative individuals and groups, against any scientific or environmental issue they don’t agree with.
These days, in the era of gun-packing protestors and “freedom of speech” fanatics, who feel anything goes, it can be a dangerous world for environmentalist and scientists around the planet, who courageously put themselves out on the front lines every day to fight for what they believe in.
Many University biologists, who are just doing their jobs, have received personal death threats, due to the nature of their work. Some are anonymous and some are signed by name.
In 2007, at the University of Colorado, evolutionary biologists were subjected to daily death threats from letters shoved under the classroom door. The letters were affixed with skull and crossbones and contained the words, “every true Christian should be ready and willing to take up arms to kill the enemies of Christian society.”
The letters were signed by Michael Korn, a radical Jewish convert, who spent many years in Israel, before returning to the United States and forming the Messiah Truth group. Korn referred to himself as JesusOverIsrael.
"Debate is fine," said Branson Hilliard, a spokesman for the university. "But threats and invocations of violence and intimations of violence are not what go on at a college campus. Students cannot learn in a context of fear."
Michael Korn and his wife disappeared from their apartment and only responded to media inquiries by e-mail and refused to admit any guilt.
In a stunning double standard, the authorities didn’t feel the threats were sufficient enough to issue an arrest warrant and stated that it was more of a difference of ideology. Whereas, if an environmental activist or animal rights activist had done the same type of thing, they would have been arrested on the spot for “eco-terrorism”.
Earlier this year, the first left-wing president, Mauricio Funes, was elected in El Salvado. There was a great deal of excitement by the citizens, human rights, and environmental groups. Only a few weeks after Funes's inauguration on June 1st, 2009, he uncovered widespread administrative corruption and moved quickly to make changes.
The US-El Salvador Sister Cities Network reports that changes of decades of conservative right-winged corruption have not been made easily or free of consequence.
In July, death threats and phone calls from ultra-right wing groups were received by several members of the U.S.-El Salvador Sister Cities Network, which is a grassroots organization formed in the mid 1980’s to bring about globalized collaboration against human injustice and environmental exploitation.
In the previous month, the US-El Salvador Sister Cities Network lost a vital member after the kidnapping, torture and murder of the environmental activist and social leader Gustavo Marcelo Rivera.
"He fought against the mining threat from the perspective of a teacher, a cultural promoter, a director of a community organization, and as a political leader", says Francisco Piñeda, leader of the Environmental Committee of Cabañas.
Since then many activists, community leaders, and journalists have faced the threat of kidnapping and death for their work to promote human rights and to stop coal and mineral strip-mining in El Salvador.
In an effort to reach out to the international community and bring awareness to the dangerous situation the Sister Cities Network, which has offices in Plattsburgh, New York and El Salvador is currently conducting a “anti-mining tour”.
The tour started on October 15 in Washington DC. It will have conferences in Philadelphia, Baltimore, Canada, and the Pacific Northwest; including Seattle and Portland.
To this date, death threats to environmental activists by the ultra-right wing party have continued. No doubt by factions that resent losing a free reign of self-righteous domination over innocent citizens and unchecked corruption. .
Furthermore, according to John Horning, Executive Director or WildEarth Guardians:
“being an activist takes a heavy dose of passion for wildlife and wild places, but most of all it takes courage. Whether standing up to preserve ancient forests in a room full of opponents, or speaking out for renewable energy in front of industry representatives for Big Coal or Big Oil, it takes courage to push the frontier of change.”
WildEarth Guardians, like other environmental organizations and activists, has received their share of verbal attacks and death threats, including a pipe bomb placed in their mail box during a fight to stop 21 million acres of national forests from being logged.
Opposition to scientific advancements and environmental activism comes from people, who don’t want change. They don’t feel that protecting forests, or animals, or waterways, or insects, or plants—should ever happen at the inconvenience of man kind. They don’t see the Earth’s systems as interconnected. They say: so what if species go extinct, forests are clear cut, water ways are polluted, CO2 climbs off the chart, mountains are strip-mined for coal—who cares?
Obviously, not every conservative is a right-winged extremist, but the more over-the-top-hate-filled conversation that is promoted by individuals, radio, and television—the more seeds are planted to facilitate radical extremism being manifested in the form of death threats and violence.
According to Frank Schaeffer, author of “Crazy for God”, conservative ultra-radicals believe their actions are sanctioned by God.
“They are dangerous,” says Schaeffer, because they have been left behind and they are bitter. They have been left behind by science, by art, by culture, and by an enlightened global community.
To some mentally susceptible people--Politicians, scientists, physicians, and environmental activists are open targets—because God, in their minds, has sanctioned the death of people who are “enemies of the Christian society.”
As evident by history, those “enemies” include people who promote and believe in evolution, women’s rights, human rights, animal rights, endangered species protection, and the belief that global warming will be catastrophic for our planet.
***Copyright DelilahStarling 2009. Permission to reprint up to three paragraphs with a direct link back to this page for “full story”.
-
- Share:
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reach -
Credibility
-
READ MORE: Death threats, science, environmentalists, Frank Schaeffer, Obama, WildEarth Guardians, El Salvador, eco-terrorism, Michael Korn, climate change, global warming, conservatives, Christianity
Post a Comment Comments: 72
I dislike those radical people as much as you do, and I'm sure most of the conservative base in the United States wouldn't agree with them either. True Christians don't work that way, because it's against everything we believe in.
Women's rights, human rights, animal rights,and endangered species protection have nothing to do with being Christian or conservative; I know many conservatives in Colorado who support all of those issues both with time and money. The belief that Global Warming will be catastrophic for our planet is just that... a belief, same as the belief that it won't; people have a right to believe what they wish.
I think maybe you're a little over the top...
Women's rights, human rights, animal rights,and endangered species protection have nothing to do with being Christian or conservative; I know many conservatives in Colorado who support all of those issues both with time and money. The belief that Global Warming will be catastrophic for our planet is just that... a belief, same as the belief that it won't; people have a right to believe what they wish.
I think maybe you're a little over the top...
You can think what you want, but you didn't read the article very well, if you think this is directed at all conservatives.
I have been an environmental activist and writer for 13 years and I have had my share of belligerant and ugly comments. And,yes, I have had death threats. It is especially easy for people to attack under anonymity, as they do on the Internet, rarely even using their own name.
The fact that biologists, scientists, and environmental activists receive hate mail and death threats is a highly under reported story. I work with about a dozen organizations who can verify this is a very real aspect of their professions.
Until you have been on the other side of death threats, you don't get to tell me that I am "over the top".
I have been an environmental activist and writer for 13 years and I have had my share of belligerant and ugly comments. And,yes, I have had death threats. It is especially easy for people to attack under anonymity, as they do on the Internet, rarely even using their own name.
The fact that biologists, scientists, and environmental activists receive hate mail and death threats is a highly under reported story. I work with about a dozen organizations who can verify this is a very real aspect of their professions.
Until you have been on the other side of death threats, you don't get to tell me that I am "over the top".
I read your article thoroughly; the title says : "why do conservatives hate science and environmentalists so much?" It doesn't say "some" conservatives, but rather "conservatives". Perhaps a little more detail for clarity would be helpful.
I've been threatened over the phone by a guy who told me he was coming to "shoot me and my family out of my house". Is that real enough for you? I called the police and they said they couldn't do anything, so I left my family in the house and met him in the driveway with a chunk of pipe and unloaded on his car till he pulled out and took off, never to be seen again. I think I know over the top when I see it...
Your article is definitely there.
I've been threatened over the phone by a guy who told me he was coming to "shoot me and my family out of my house". Is that real enough for you? I called the police and they said they couldn't do anything, so I left my family in the house and met him in the driveway with a chunk of pipe and unloaded on his car till he pulled out and took off, never to be seen again. I think I know over the top when I see it...
Your article is definitely there.
"You are entitled to your opinion. One episode in your drive way doesn't constitute an ongoing exposure to such threats for years on end, for no other reason than what your believe or write about."
Why do you think that one episode is my only experience with either extreme physical danger or prejudice? I've danced to a different drummer all my life, and I tend to speak my mind regardless of the consequences; if I started listing every bump, scrape, and abuse I've endured, it would become a very long boring story. I short, I've been physically attacked because of my beliefs or statements; in one instance a couple of welders tried to drop about 5 lbs of molten slag down my back, which, if it didn't kill me, would have left me scarred for life. Fortunately for me, they missed. In short, I know what it's like to be in clear and present danger, way beyond threats, because of what I say or believe.
Delilah, nobody should ever be exposed to physical violence or intimidation because of what they believe, say or write about. People shouldn't try to silence them. Unfortunately, all of the above come with the territory. It's a part of being an activist.
Look at the incredible courage of environmental groups like the Buffalo Field Campaign, who constantly put themselves on the line for injury or arrest to preserve the last wild Buffalo herd in America.
Look at those who put their bodies in front of whale trawlers; activism is putting yourself out there, come hell or high water. When you do that, you're going to be subject to the directed ignorance,and occasionally, violence of others. Again, it goes with the territory. When you stand up, you get noticed, and when you get noticed, a target magically appears on your chest.
If you're not ready and willing to wear that target, don't be an activist or a journalist. It probably shouldn't be that way, but that's just the reality of activism.
Why do you think that one episode is my only experience with either extreme physical danger or prejudice? I've danced to a different drummer all my life, and I tend to speak my mind regardless of the consequences; if I started listing every bump, scrape, and abuse I've endured, it would become a very long boring story. I short, I've been physically attacked because of my beliefs or statements; in one instance a couple of welders tried to drop about 5 lbs of molten slag down my back, which, if it didn't kill me, would have left me scarred for life. Fortunately for me, they missed. In short, I know what it's like to be in clear and present danger, way beyond threats, because of what I say or believe.
Delilah, nobody should ever be exposed to physical violence or intimidation because of what they believe, say or write about. People shouldn't try to silence them. Unfortunately, all of the above come with the territory. It's a part of being an activist.
Look at the incredible courage of environmental groups like the Buffalo Field Campaign, who constantly put themselves on the line for injury or arrest to preserve the last wild Buffalo herd in America.
Look at those who put their bodies in front of whale trawlers; activism is putting yourself out there, come hell or high water. When you do that, you're going to be subject to the directed ignorance,and occasionally, violence of others. Again, it goes with the territory. When you stand up, you get noticed, and when you get noticed, a target magically appears on your chest.
If you're not ready and willing to wear that target, don't be an activist or a journalist. It probably shouldn't be that way, but that's just the reality of activism.
You are entitled to your opinion. One episode in your drive way doesn't constitute an ongoing exposure to such threats for years on end, for no other reason than what your believe or write about.
This is the first I heard of this. I am surprised MSNBC hasn't jumped on this. Has CNN fact-checked this yet?
I think this is really a stretch. I work with and associate with many Liberals and moderates and this conversation has never come up.
When it's not Obama who is in danger from right wing extremists, it's environmentalists.
Once again, I think you are just projecting your own insecurities and wishing that's how things really were.
If anyone should be concerned, it is probably the miilions that stand to lose their jobs if this administration is ignorant enough to pass any type of Climate Change legislation.
I think this is really a stretch. I work with and associate with many Liberals and moderates and this conversation has never come up.
When it's not Obama who is in danger from right wing extremists, it's environmentalists.
Once again, I think you are just projecting your own insecurities and wishing that's how things really were.
If anyone should be concerned, it is probably the miilions that stand to lose their jobs if this administration is ignorant enough to pass any type of Climate Change legislation.
all that matters is the corporations isn't it?
I just don't understand when there is a healthier, safer, cleaner, more efficient way of doing things, why wouldn't everyone just back up such initiatives?
Because just like with everything else, the right has become the Corporate Party. The party of big business, wall street and all together ruthless people.
And people like you Red, are willing to believe lies just so you can remain , ruthless, selfish and all together immoral.
You don't want healthcare reform, because it's bad for industry.
You don't want cleaner air, water and lands because of industry.
You don't want higher taxes for the rich because of industry.
You don't want corporate taxes because of industry.
You don't want a green industry, because it will hurt black industry.
You want to destroy land, so oil companies can drill.
we had it your way for 8 years. no environmental anything was done for 8 years and the world went to sh!t over it. Industry and companies did whatever the hell they wanted for 8 years, how great is our economy because of it?
Didn't you just have a President that cut taxes for industry, that repealed enviromental laws for industry, that did everything the right expects from a President. How great is our economy because of what you wanted?
Let's hope you get what you want. It's only bad for you. Since you are not part of an Oil company, health company or Wall Street.
But you are part of this planet, and if you don't get behind supporting environmental programs and ideas, it is your life that is in danger.
God knows how many chemicals we drink everyday in our water. even the bottled water in plastic bottles.
Who knows what we breathe in our cities and around industrail areas.
Who knows what is in the food we eat. What did the cow i just ate, eat? What does the fish I just ate have in its body? I wonder what extreme hurricane, flood, tornado and other weather and climate related things will kill millions of us?
Katrina didn't kill people beause Mardi Gras was going on in New Orleans, it has more to with climate change.
For a bunch of people that are always speaking about personal responsibility, you conservatives sure don't want to be responsible for the pollutions you let out in to the world, and the "black" companies that let out pollution in your name.
I just don't understand when there is a healthier, safer, cleaner, more efficient way of doing things, why wouldn't everyone just back up such initiatives?
Because just like with everything else, the right has become the Corporate Party. The party of big business, wall street and all together ruthless people.
And people like you Red, are willing to believe lies just so you can remain , ruthless, selfish and all together immoral.
You don't want healthcare reform, because it's bad for industry.
You don't want cleaner air, water and lands because of industry.
You don't want higher taxes for the rich because of industry.
You don't want corporate taxes because of industry.
You don't want a green industry, because it will hurt black industry.
You want to destroy land, so oil companies can drill.
we had it your way for 8 years. no environmental anything was done for 8 years and the world went to sh!t over it. Industry and companies did whatever the hell they wanted for 8 years, how great is our economy because of it?
Didn't you just have a President that cut taxes for industry, that repealed enviromental laws for industry, that did everything the right expects from a President. How great is our economy because of what you wanted?
Let's hope you get what you want. It's only bad for you. Since you are not part of an Oil company, health company or Wall Street.
But you are part of this planet, and if you don't get behind supporting environmental programs and ideas, it is your life that is in danger.
God knows how many chemicals we drink everyday in our water. even the bottled water in plastic bottles.
Who knows what we breathe in our cities and around industrail areas.
Who knows what is in the food we eat. What did the cow i just ate, eat? What does the fish I just ate have in its body? I wonder what extreme hurricane, flood, tornado and other weather and climate related things will kill millions of us?
Katrina didn't kill people beause Mardi Gras was going on in New Orleans, it has more to with climate change.
For a bunch of people that are always speaking about personal responsibility, you conservatives sure don't want to be responsible for the pollutions you let out in to the world, and the "black" companies that let out pollution in your name.
amalgam80, you have great points in your comment. People like Ross and Redhanded frequently allude to some kind of plot by conservationists, but I have to wonder, what do they think we're after? Are we making big money like the oil or coal companies? Are we raking in giant profits like the health insurance or pharmaceutical industries?
No, we are really and truly sincerely trying to protect our world from destruction by greedy, short-sighted or myopic consumptive interests. Most of us go out of our way to recycle, conserve water, buy green, mulch yard waste and do other 'bothersome' tasks that earn us no reward other than the satisfaction of trying to do the right thing. We contribute to conservation needs and willingly sacrifice for what we see as an urgent cause.
So I also have to wonder why many conservatives attack and belittle us as if we are trying to personally harm them in some way? Why do they feel threatened by people who are genuinely trying to help keep our world healthy?
Thank you for this thought provoking article, Delilah Starling.
No, we are really and truly sincerely trying to protect our world from destruction by greedy, short-sighted or myopic consumptive interests. Most of us go out of our way to recycle, conserve water, buy green, mulch yard waste and do other 'bothersome' tasks that earn us no reward other than the satisfaction of trying to do the right thing. We contribute to conservation needs and willingly sacrifice for what we see as an urgent cause.
So I also have to wonder why many conservatives attack and belittle us as if we are trying to personally harm them in some way? Why do they feel threatened by people who are genuinely trying to help keep our world healthy?
Thank you for this thought provoking article, Delilah Starling.
Birdpond,
You make some valid points. Personally, I admire conversationalists. I'm active in an number of campaigns myself, and try to do my part to keep our world green and healthy;
I can understand why you might feel attacked and belittled and I can honestly say I think you deserve much better. Our world is a better place because of the people who work and sacrifice to make it so. Believe it or not, many conservatives feel the same way, because they are often labeled as "gun nuts", "fanatics", "self-righteous", "angry", when most of us are much more level-headed.
Believe it or not, many conservatives wonder why liberals always seem (to us) to be so angry all the time. I think it's just a difference in the way we view things. I think whenever either side starts attacking the policies of the other, it appears to be anger, when usually it's more a case of passionate belief, which is quite different.
I think that when any of us just assume what the other side is thinking, we run into trouble.
You make some valid points. Personally, I admire conversationalists. I'm active in an number of campaigns myself, and try to do my part to keep our world green and healthy;
I can understand why you might feel attacked and belittled and I can honestly say I think you deserve much better. Our world is a better place because of the people who work and sacrifice to make it so. Believe it or not, many conservatives feel the same way, because they are often labeled as "gun nuts", "fanatics", "self-righteous", "angry", when most of us are much more level-headed.
Believe it or not, many conservatives wonder why liberals always seem (to us) to be so angry all the time. I think it's just a difference in the way we view things. I think whenever either side starts attacking the policies of the other, it appears to be anger, when usually it's more a case of passionate belief, which is quite different.
I think that when any of us just assume what the other side is thinking, we run into trouble.
Birdpong, your questions are very valid. Why are conservatives so threatened? Why are they so angry all the time?
Thanks for the comment!
Thanks for the comment!
There are about a dozen links embedded in this article. You are free to do you own fact checking.
Your liberal and moderate associates are not activists, so why would they know anything about the abusive messages and death threats received by the science and environmental community?
I can't even imagine how many ugly messages and death threats that Al Gore gets on a daily basis.
This subject has absolutely nothing to do with jobs, or wars, or the economy, or anything else conservatives like to throw out as a diversionary tactic.
Your liberal and moderate associates are not activists, so why would they know anything about the abusive messages and death threats received by the science and environmental community?
I can't even imagine how many ugly messages and death threats that Al Gore gets on a daily basis.
This subject has absolutely nothing to do with jobs, or wars, or the economy, or anything else conservatives like to throw out as a diversionary tactic.
Delilah:
I think this is why citizen journalism will pay off. The professional media has so many gatekeepers good reporters/writers are lucky if they can file something when nobody is around. It is called guerrilla filing.
I think this is why citizen journalism will pay off. The professional media has so many gatekeepers good reporters/writers are lucky if they can file something when nobody is around. It is called guerrilla filing.
Mikey Weinstein of Albuquerque, a Jewish graduate of the Air Force Academy, can tell you what his entire family has gone through. His kids, while cadets, being told they would burn in hell if they didn't believe in Jesus.
Robert, I got the idea for this article from a letter written by the director of an environmental organization, who indicated that is more than a little disconcerting to get those kind of threats, then have to go out in public to do your job. There's just no way of knowing what kind of nut job might walk out of the crowd and pull a gun.
I know of several Internet freelancers that stopped writing, because they were the subject of relentless attacks. Even as an Internet writer, when you get a message that says "I will find you and....", it makes a person feel very vulnerable.
Thanks for your comment.
I know of several Internet freelancers that stopped writing, because they were the subject of relentless attacks. Even as an Internet writer, when you get a message that says "I will find you and....", it makes a person feel very vulnerable.
Thanks for your comment.
If you can forward any such threats to me, if you choose, I could pass it on to my friend Mikey. His organization loves to spotlight threats from God Boys.
A bit far fetched, it could go both ways you know.
Both ways? You mean, like liberals going after conservatives and threatening to kill them and bring violence on them and their families, for...what?
Liberals may do crazy things like camp out in trees to keep them from being cut down or sit in protest in front of bulldozers trying to level a prairie dog town, but they are not known for threatening people because "God" says they are enemies to "liberal society".
Liberals may do crazy things like camp out in trees to keep them from being cut down or sit in protest in front of bulldozers trying to level a prairie dog town, but they are not known for threatening people because "God" says they are enemies to "liberal society".
you mean like this:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: "You guys see Live and Let Die, the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big? In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody's going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we'll be there to watch. I think he's Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush?"
Or this:
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/newman/2005/newman081105.htm
or this from the Boston Herald:
"Leaving stalled vehicles and stretching metal chains across freeways. Even kidnapping delegates. All were tactics discussed by anarchists as ways to disrupt the Republican National Convention, according to police documents."
from the same article:
"Groups planning to disrupt this week’s convention also held an "action camp" in Minnesota this summer to teach "direct action techniques" using mock Molotov cocktails and a simulated RNC delegate vehicle that was targeted for rocks and tire-slashing, the documents say, citing information gathered by undercover investigators."
Or this:
"LAS VEGAS - A man accused of threatening a Nevada Republican Party official with a rifle was arrested Tuesday in a vehicle in which police found swords, knives, a shotgun, shells and a flare gun, authorities said...Zachary Moyle, executive director of the state GOP, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that Kramer invited him to look at something in the trunk of his Mercedes before pulling out a rifle, pointing it at his face and warning that he would be back if President Bush vetoed an emergency war spending bill being considered by Congress."
Obviously, these people are not representative of even a small majority of liberals. I recognize that from the start. It is, however, just as ridiculous to believe that violence is any more prone to conservatives. It goes both ways.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: "You guys see Live and Let Die, the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big? In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody's going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we'll be there to watch. I think he's Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush?"
Or this:
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/newman/2005/newman081105.htm
or this from the Boston Herald:
"Leaving stalled vehicles and stretching metal chains across freeways. Even kidnapping delegates. All were tactics discussed by anarchists as ways to disrupt the Republican National Convention, according to police documents."
from the same article:
"Groups planning to disrupt this week’s convention also held an "action camp" in Minnesota this summer to teach "direct action techniques" using mock Molotov cocktails and a simulated RNC delegate vehicle that was targeted for rocks and tire-slashing, the documents say, citing information gathered by undercover investigators."
Or this:
"LAS VEGAS - A man accused of threatening a Nevada Republican Party official with a rifle was arrested Tuesday in a vehicle in which police found swords, knives, a shotgun, shells and a flare gun, authorities said...Zachary Moyle, executive director of the state GOP, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that Kramer invited him to look at something in the trunk of his Mercedes before pulling out a rifle, pointing it at his face and warning that he would be back if President Bush vetoed an emergency war spending bill being considered by Congress."
Obviously, these people are not representative of even a small majority of liberals. I recognize that from the start. It is, however, just as ridiculous to believe that violence is any more prone to conservatives. It goes both ways.
Thanks Robert, the problem with investigating any kind of threat, whether it be written, verbal, or a pipebomb left in your mail box, is that the actions are conducted by cowards, who rarely identify themselves, other than pen names or the scrawling of some prophecy or the like.
I think it's prejudicial to state that all conservatives hate science and environmentalists. The real issue here is that fanatacism, whether right or left wing, leads to radical actions that aren't appropriate. I am a conservative but I love science and I believe in properly attending and watching out for the planet and creatures God gave to us on this earth.
What people need to realize is that our political administration is lying to us and trying to usher in a new age of complete governmental control and dependence. If everyone could come to this realization, maybe they would quit pointing fingers at each other and focus on the real problem, the elected officials. Squabbling like beggars over a restaurant dumpster is just a clever diversion they have inspired us to enter so they can destroy everything we all stand for. If you honestly believe that conservatives and Christian communities are not threatened and attacked on a regular basis, you are not well informed and that may not be entirely your fault. The reason you never hear of it is because the media is affraid to cover anything that isn't liberal, left or Presidentially friendly. You don't hear about the Christians getting stoned in Mexico. But you'll vote on a law that would hinder Pastors speaking out against homosexuality in an evangelical church all the while complaining because you are being silenced. No one has the right to impose their opinions on others and becoming a terrorist is certainly not the answer.
What needs to happen is that the people, right, left, middle and undecided need to take back the country and decide for themselves what they will and will not tolerate, while maintaining the sacred belief of in-alienable rights, including the right to peacefully disagree without fear of violence or slander. We ALL had the right to say what we believed and we need to get back there again, but no law should ever impose on the rights of any faction. I believe in of the people, by the people, for the people, one nation under God, because that is what has worked in the past and the only thing that can work now. We are collapsing because we are getting futher and further away from that cornerstone, and if you don't believe that, it's not my job to change you, I only ask the same consideration.
So like anything, there is good and bad in any faction. If you are out there pushing the envelope for what you believe in you can expect that there will be those that will despise you for it and cross lines that certainly do not need to be crossed. But I know that when someone treats me that way for what I believe, I never blog online about how angry they make me or complain, because in my heart I know that what I've said has reached them on some level and though I believe they are very lost in their perspective, I will love them the same. They can hate me if they like but I know it's for all the right reasons. If what you believe in comes from a place of true love and respect, even when you are under pressure, you would be able to maintain a loving disposition. Please try and remember that Conservatives and Christians are not your enemy anymore than I believe you are mine. I commend you on fighting for what you believe in even if I whole heartedly disagree because atleast you stand for something. Just try not to become like those you are fighting. You aren't fighting conservatives and Christians, you're fighting fanatacism. Not all of us are fanatics.
Annie
Northwest Arkansas
God Bless You Guys
What people need to realize is that our political administration is lying to us and trying to usher in a new age of complete governmental control and dependence. If everyone could come to this realization, maybe they would quit pointing fingers at each other and focus on the real problem, the elected officials. Squabbling like beggars over a restaurant dumpster is just a clever diversion they have inspired us to enter so they can destroy everything we all stand for. If you honestly believe that conservatives and Christian communities are not threatened and attacked on a regular basis, you are not well informed and that may not be entirely your fault. The reason you never hear of it is because the media is affraid to cover anything that isn't liberal, left or Presidentially friendly. You don't hear about the Christians getting stoned in Mexico. But you'll vote on a law that would hinder Pastors speaking out against homosexuality in an evangelical church all the while complaining because you are being silenced. No one has the right to impose their opinions on others and becoming a terrorist is certainly not the answer.
What needs to happen is that the people, right, left, middle and undecided need to take back the country and decide for themselves what they will and will not tolerate, while maintaining the sacred belief of in-alienable rights, including the right to peacefully disagree without fear of violence or slander. We ALL had the right to say what we believed and we need to get back there again, but no law should ever impose on the rights of any faction. I believe in of the people, by the people, for the people, one nation under God, because that is what has worked in the past and the only thing that can work now. We are collapsing because we are getting futher and further away from that cornerstone, and if you don't believe that, it's not my job to change you, I only ask the same consideration.
So like anything, there is good and bad in any faction. If you are out there pushing the envelope for what you believe in you can expect that there will be those that will despise you for it and cross lines that certainly do not need to be crossed. But I know that when someone treats me that way for what I believe, I never blog online about how angry they make me or complain, because in my heart I know that what I've said has reached them on some level and though I believe they are very lost in their perspective, I will love them the same. They can hate me if they like but I know it's for all the right reasons. If what you believe in comes from a place of true love and respect, even when you are under pressure, you would be able to maintain a loving disposition. Please try and remember that Conservatives and Christians are not your enemy anymore than I believe you are mine. I commend you on fighting for what you believe in even if I whole heartedly disagree because atleast you stand for something. Just try not to become like those you are fighting. You aren't fighting conservatives and Christians, you're fighting fanatacism. Not all of us are fanatics.
Annie
Northwest Arkansas
God Bless You Guys
Hi Annie, this article is not about ALL conservatives, but the fact is MOST conservatives are Christians--therefore science and the bible don't co-exist for many conservatives.
The focus of the article is the fact that scientists and environmental activists get death threats on a routine basis and they are perpetrated by radical right-winged nut jobs. Also, there are probably a segment of people who say things under anonymity--just because they are cowardly bullies trying to scare and intimidate people.
Certainly not all conservatives are in those groups, just like all liberals are not atheists.
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
The focus of the article is the fact that scientists and environmental activists get death threats on a routine basis and they are perpetrated by radical right-winged nut jobs. Also, there are probably a segment of people who say things under anonymity--just because they are cowardly bullies trying to scare and intimidate people.
Certainly not all conservatives are in those groups, just like all liberals are not atheists.
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
"Certainly not all conservatives are in those groups, just like all liberals are not atheists."
Yep... and while I take issue with some of your statements, you make some very valid points, which I heartily support. Actually, very few conservatives are in those groups, but it doesn't take too many splashed across the media to make it look that way...
Yep... and while I take issue with some of your statements, you make some very valid points, which I heartily support. Actually, very few conservatives are in those groups, but it doesn't take too many splashed across the media to make it look that way...
"Hi Annie, this article is not about ALL conservatives, but the fact is MOST conservatives are Christians--therefore science and the bible don't co-exist for many conservatives."
Are you aware, of course, that most liberals at least in the US, are also Christians? Science and the Bible works fine for them; in fact it works very well for many conservative Christians as well.
I'm a conservative Christian, and science is my life. One of my favorite hobbies is researching Quantum Mechanics. I'm a firm believer in the Big Bang, and have no problem reconciling it with the book of Genesis.
There are many people like me... we just don't get much press because we're harder to use as bad examples... *lol*
Are you aware, of course, that most liberals at least in the US, are also Christians? Science and the Bible works fine for them; in fact it works very well for many conservative Christians as well.
I'm a conservative Christian, and science is my life. One of my favorite hobbies is researching Quantum Mechanics. I'm a firm believer in the Big Bang, and have no problem reconciling it with the book of Genesis.
There are many people like me... we just don't get much press because we're harder to use as bad examples... *lol*
It's all about money. Republicans traditionally stand for big business, while Democrats traditionally stand for the workers and environmental protection.
Some people will do anything for money, and if there weren't some rational people around to keep them in check they'd dump their chemical waste in the rivers, pollute the air, drill and mine everywhere they could with no care about the destruction they leave behind. Just to make a buck.
If the big lumber companies hadn't been regulated there wouldn't be a forest in America today. A handful of people would have gotten richer(they got rich even with regulation), but all the forests would be gone. Those giant redwoods and sequoias in California that have been alive for over 2,000 years would be gone forever if the logging companies weren't stopped.
It really seems nutty to think that these people intent on plundering nature actually think that God is on their side, and they think that the ones trying to protect the environment are enemies of God.
I believe the beauty of nature is God's finest gift to us. I can even believe that the working of nature IS God. The times of my life when I really felt close to God were times that I was walking in a high mountain meadow with wild grass up to my knees, wildflowers everywhere, surrounded by snow-capped mountains, a waterfall gushing over granite cliffs, a lake of pure water reflecting the mountains, and a stream running by with water fed by snow-melt that's so pure and sweet that you can drink it with no fear of it having impurities and disease.
I can equally believe that God's wrath and power can be found displayed in tornadoes and hurricanes and vulcanoes, and no man-made weapon comes even close to the destructive force of Mother Nature.
I believe nature is here for us to use but not plunder. Go ahead and take a little bit, but give back a little bit, too. It's O.K. for us to use it, but it's also our responsibility to protect it.
Some people will do anything for money, and if there weren't some rational people around to keep them in check they'd dump their chemical waste in the rivers, pollute the air, drill and mine everywhere they could with no care about the destruction they leave behind. Just to make a buck.
If the big lumber companies hadn't been regulated there wouldn't be a forest in America today. A handful of people would have gotten richer(they got rich even with regulation), but all the forests would be gone. Those giant redwoods and sequoias in California that have been alive for over 2,000 years would be gone forever if the logging companies weren't stopped.
It really seems nutty to think that these people intent on plundering nature actually think that God is on their side, and they think that the ones trying to protect the environment are enemies of God.
I believe the beauty of nature is God's finest gift to us. I can even believe that the working of nature IS God. The times of my life when I really felt close to God were times that I was walking in a high mountain meadow with wild grass up to my knees, wildflowers everywhere, surrounded by snow-capped mountains, a waterfall gushing over granite cliffs, a lake of pure water reflecting the mountains, and a stream running by with water fed by snow-melt that's so pure and sweet that you can drink it with no fear of it having impurities and disease.
I can equally believe that God's wrath and power can be found displayed in tornadoes and hurricanes and vulcanoes, and no man-made weapon comes even close to the destructive force of Mother Nature.
I believe nature is here for us to use but not plunder. Go ahead and take a little bit, but give back a little bit, too. It's O.K. for us to use it, but it's also our responsibility to protect it.
winds7seas,thanks for your inciteful and thoughtful comment.
I agree with the connection between God and nature.
For scientists, biologists, and environmental activists to be subjected to verbal abuse, even to the extreme of physical violence and death threats--is what prompted my article.
You are right--it is about the money, but it is also about radical fanatics, who are deeply delusional in their beliefs--and those people are dangerous.
I agree with the connection between God and nature.
For scientists, biologists, and environmental activists to be subjected to verbal abuse, even to the extreme of physical violence and death threats--is what prompted my article.
You are right--it is about the money, but it is also about radical fanatics, who are deeply delusional in their beliefs--and those people are dangerous.
Delilah,
Interesting and informative article. You mentioned animal rights and environmental activists, and I agree that the right tends to get away with this kind of threatening behavior more than the left. But then again, we do have a Democratic president now, so maybe the scales of justice will even out soon.
BTW, great job on the page views. 17,000 and counting. Wow!
Interesting and informative article. You mentioned animal rights and environmental activists, and I agree that the right tends to get away with this kind of threatening behavior more than the left. But then again, we do have a Democratic president now, so maybe the scales of justice will even out soon.
BTW, great job on the page views. 17,000 and counting. Wow!
Punditty, I am stunned by the amount of page views and thumbs up this article has garnered.
Apparently, it speaks for a lot of people, who may have experienced similar things or know someone who has. As I mentioned in a previous comment, this is a very under-reported phenomenon. It is such a rare pleasure for a writer to make that achievement.
Apparently, it speaks for a lot of people, who may have experienced similar things or know someone who has. As I mentioned in a previous comment, this is a very under-reported phenomenon. It is such a rare pleasure for a writer to make that achievement.
the title was a bit attacking. Your article was great, surprised by the views, but great, but lost me at the title because it istantly put me on the defensive (I am none of the things you mentioned in the article and am quite the conservative!). I suppose you were going for a title that would evoke emotion, viewership, and commentary.That is precisely what you got. But your eloquence and talent as a writer, which is quite evidentiary, was clouded by your title that was a slant in your favor. Please consider these keypoints in your next article.
ASHER KADE VIA MOBILE
ASHER KADE VIA MOBILE
I agree. The title put me on the defensive also. I am very much a conservative, and I love the science and the search for knowledge and truth. I am a complete atheist. Your title made you seem like a liberal nutjob making false claims. While I agree it is a good article and you point out some interesting things, you are only looking at one aspect. You titled this to attack conservatives in a very immature way. You should have relied on the strength of your article and used a more appropriate title. Especially since most of your comments to defend your article are going against your title and some of the content of your article.
Good day.
Good day.
Seems to me, you and akade777 dude are just jealous of someone who is capable of writing something that a lot of people are interested in reading about.
It certainly beats balloon boy and octomom.
I don't see any "cheap shots" by anyone but the people on here criticizing a nice piece of work. If the title is all you can come up to complain about, than you people are suffering from a bad case of envy-itis.
It certainly beats balloon boy and octomom.
I don't see any "cheap shots" by anyone but the people on here criticizing a nice piece of work. If the title is all you can come up to complain about, than you people are suffering from a bad case of envy-itis.
loveless: my point exactly. Makes you wonder if everyone would get this many views if they made such titles? While the article is great and deserves recognition, it's a cheap ploy to get people to take notice!
ASHER KADE VIA MOBILE
ASHER KADE VIA MOBILE
Hi Delilah,
I always find your news enlightening and well-presented. It's pretty clear that you're not actually trying to label people here. I find it very upsetting that you've received death threats!
I strongly believe that this is about religion and money. And by religion I mean the distorted "I believe what I want because I have a big head" kind. Science must be wrong because it would challenge the safe little comfortable box that we love. Screw opening new horizons. The environment must not be important because that would mean that maybe I did something to contribute to its pollution, and that can't be true because I'm perfect. So let's not recycle and all suffer for it. And supporting government programs to better our planet might raise taxes which would take away some of my immense amounts of money, so they are terrible. Grab your pitchforks.
A lot of conservatives are open to new ideas, or at least have a valid reason for disagreeing. Those who don't are the vocal few that we remember, the ones with the money and free time or psychosis to become ridiculous about it. They're too proud to admit they are wrong and will fight for their right to be blockheads.
Thanks Delilah,
from the Resident Christian Democrat
I always find your news enlightening and well-presented. It's pretty clear that you're not actually trying to label people here. I find it very upsetting that you've received death threats!
I strongly believe that this is about religion and money. And by religion I mean the distorted "I believe what I want because I have a big head" kind. Science must be wrong because it would challenge the safe little comfortable box that we love. Screw opening new horizons. The environment must not be important because that would mean that maybe I did something to contribute to its pollution, and that can't be true because I'm perfect. So let's not recycle and all suffer for it. And supporting government programs to better our planet might raise taxes which would take away some of my immense amounts of money, so they are terrible. Grab your pitchforks.
A lot of conservatives are open to new ideas, or at least have a valid reason for disagreeing. Those who don't are the vocal few that we remember, the ones with the money and free time or psychosis to become ridiculous about it. They're too proud to admit they are wrong and will fight for their right to be blockheads.
Thanks Delilah,
from the Resident Christian Democrat
Hi Bethany, you are right, the only people that are targeted here are the radical-extremists. I am amazed at the people who were offended by the title. The fact is a majority of conservatives are Christians, and most Christians don't believe in science or environmental protection. If they are one, good for them, but it doesn't change the very real fact that most aren't.
Thanks for your comment and for being one of the sane Christian Democrats.
Thanks for your comment and for being one of the sane Christian Democrats.
lecia if that was directed at me would you mind telling me why? all those things I said in the second paragraph were cynical statements, not things I think myself. Maybe you're bothered by the fact that I was cynical. I don't like that either. I get upset when people of my own religion seem unwilling to help their neighbors and their planet. But like I said, that's few people. It's the vocal people.
If you don't like me, that's fine, but I would hope you wouldn't let it influence your personal belief system.
If you don't like me, that's fine, but I would hope you wouldn't let it influence your personal belief system.
its because your all a bunch of hypocrites
while this article may be good, the title screams of politically motivated propaganda. it would make as much sense to ask why do christians hate science and environmentalist as these people claim to be christians ….could it be because the author considers herself a christian so she does not want to besmirch her own beliefs but has no qualms of besmirching others?
while this article may be good, the title screams of politically motivated propaganda. it would make as much sense to ask why do christians hate science and environmentalist as these people claim to be christians ….could it be because the author considers herself a christian so she does not want to besmirch her own beliefs but has no qualms of besmirching others?
Think about what you just posted and realize how stupid that sentance is...
I was told the same thing for years when I was a practicing Pagan...*lol*. There has to come a time when you an just put all that stuff behind you.
There are Christian groups here in Colorado Springs who would act the way you describe; there are far more, however, who don't make the press, who embrace everyone. One of the things that drew my wife and I to our present church, was that they accepted us, a Pagan and a Jew, and welcomed us with open arms, without any judgment. We've both subsequently become Christians, because people demonstrated their faith without preaching; showed love without judgment. To me, that's what Christianity is all about.
There are Christian groups here in Colorado Springs who would act the way you describe; there are far more, however, who don't make the press, who embrace everyone. One of the things that drew my wife and I to our present church, was that they accepted us, a Pagan and a Jew, and welcomed us with open arms, without any judgment. We've both subsequently become Christians, because people demonstrated their faith without preaching; showed love without judgment. To me, that's what Christianity is all about.
fireisle: "...love without judgment." Amen to that! So easy to say, so difficult to put into practice. This is why it is a wondrous thing to awaken to The Christ within, the Breath of Life inside us, so that we may be guided by the Holy Spirit and do unto others as we would have them do unto us. As St. Paul said, we each have different gifts, but they come from the same Spirit.
Having said that, I will agree with the people who said the headline on this article is a bit partisan. But then again, this article falls under the rubric of what is commonly known as an "opinion piece," so it's not as if Delilah Starling is pretending to be an objective news organization, she just spoke (uh, wrote) her mind and added a provocative headline.
Having said that, I will agree with the people who said the headline on this article is a bit partisan. But then again, this article falls under the rubric of what is commonly known as an "opinion piece," so it's not as if Delilah Starling is pretending to be an objective news organization, she just spoke (uh, wrote) her mind and added a provocative headline.
Punditty, with all due respect, my article is not an "opinion piece".
It is a factual piece written in my particular "voice", but it incorporates several real instances of death threats received by scientists and environmentalists. One activist in El Salvador was kidnapped, tortured, and killed for his stand against mountain top strip-mining for coal in his country. These are well documented facts, not my opinion.
This piece is about a very real problem, because I belong to eight environmental organizations and have direct connections with many directors and they confirm this is unfortunately a part of their job. It's not about DelilahStarling speaking her mind, it's about reporting on a story that is rarely reported on, which is probably why it has been viewed so often.
If my headline had said, "Why do ALL conservatives hate science and environmentalists?" then it would have been a bit partisan.
Thanks for your comment and observations.
It is a factual piece written in my particular "voice", but it incorporates several real instances of death threats received by scientists and environmentalists. One activist in El Salvador was kidnapped, tortured, and killed for his stand against mountain top strip-mining for coal in his country. These are well documented facts, not my opinion.
This piece is about a very real problem, because I belong to eight environmental organizations and have direct connections with many directors and they confirm this is unfortunately a part of their job. It's not about DelilahStarling speaking her mind, it's about reporting on a story that is rarely reported on, which is probably why it has been viewed so often.
If my headline had said, "Why do ALL conservatives hate science and environmentalists?" then it would have been a bit partisan.
Thanks for your comment and observations.
Digger59, sorry for taking so long to get back to this comment thread, but I thought it had ran its course, so I have been busy with other articles and obligations.
Wow, all I can say is thank you so much for your support and your kind words.
Wow, all I can say is thank you so much for your support and your kind words.
Punditty, I have been an reader/observer of Allvoices writers and articles for about 3 months and didn't feel like signing up to leave my 2 cents worth until this article came out.
Mostly, because I couldn't believe all the attacks on her personally, just because of the great headline she chose. If people don't fall into the category of conservative that she talks about, why would they be so defensive? I think its a big fat case of envy-itis.
Delilah is probably the closest thing to a professional journalist that I have seen here and she goes beyond just the basic facts to add rich layers of information and different slants on most, not all, of her pieces.
This is a news report headline and all. In fact, headlines are are the most important part of a story. All reporters editorialize to a certain degree. Especially, in an Internet citizen journalist venue like this one. Delilah isn't afraid to add her own "voice", but she never writes in the first person like an op/ed piece, and this article has all the features of a news report, including links to the sources she quotes.
I would say, if you want to check out some real op/ed pieces, I think the best "opinion" writer on AV is California Mike and the worst, purely due to blatant bias and negative attacts are Redhanded101 and write4life. Actually, there's a lot of opinion based pieces, so check out their stuff and you will see the difference between and "opinion piece" and this article.
Mostly, because I couldn't believe all the attacks on her personally, just because of the great headline she chose. If people don't fall into the category of conservative that she talks about, why would they be so defensive? I think its a big fat case of envy-itis.
Delilah is probably the closest thing to a professional journalist that I have seen here and she goes beyond just the basic facts to add rich layers of information and different slants on most, not all, of her pieces.
This is a news report headline and all. In fact, headlines are are the most important part of a story. All reporters editorialize to a certain degree. Especially, in an Internet citizen journalist venue like this one. Delilah isn't afraid to add her own "voice", but she never writes in the first person like an op/ed piece, and this article has all the features of a news report, including links to the sources she quotes.
I would say, if you want to check out some real op/ed pieces, I think the best "opinion" writer on AV is California Mike and the worst, purely due to blatant bias and negative attacts are Redhanded101 and write4life. Actually, there's a lot of opinion based pieces, so check out their stuff and you will see the difference between and "opinion piece" and this article.
Well, firesisle, my former editor would disagree with you.
A news piece has quotes, facts, sources, and verifiable links to those sources. Just because it has a preamble and a conclusion, doesn't diminish the newsworthiness of the message--and that message is that scientists and environmentalists are often subjected to scorn, verbal attacts, and death threats--by conservative radicals--just for doing their jobs.
I know what an op/ed piece is, because I love writing them, but I rarely do, and this isn't one.
A news piece has quotes, facts, sources, and verifiable links to those sources. Just because it has a preamble and a conclusion, doesn't diminish the newsworthiness of the message--and that message is that scientists and environmentalists are often subjected to scorn, verbal attacts, and death threats--by conservative radicals--just for doing their jobs.
I know what an op/ed piece is, because I love writing them, but I rarely do, and this isn't one.
Firesisle,
Thanks, I think.
At the end of the day, it's an original piece of work that I am proud of, that was received well by the readers and all the snarky criticism on this comment thread won't change that.
Thanks, I think.
At the end of the day, it's an original piece of work that I am proud of, that was received well by the readers and all the snarky criticism on this comment thread won't change that.
I agree; despite any criticism you get from me or anyone else, you should be proud of it.
and then wonders why no one cares about what she is talking about....if she was really concerned about this issue she would not have hyperbole the title...leaving one to believe all she really intended was to create controversy...which she did...so if that was her objective then mission accomplished but if she wanted to draw attention to the plight of the scientist then she failed miserably
Lecia, the day you actually spend the time to research and write anything to post here on Allvoices, might be the day anyone cares what you are talking about. You have not contributed a single report, yet you show up incessantly on comment threads to criticize everyone else's work.
You are negative, snide, disrespectful, offensive, and obviously have way too much time on your hands.
So, I have three words of advice for you: get-a-life.
You are negative, snide, disrespectful, offensive, and obviously have way too much time on your hands.
So, I have three words of advice for you: get-a-life.
I think a writer, any writer, who eschews what any of his or her readers has to say is making a mistake. All articles, on any subject, will have their rebuttals; even somebody who might, at first glance, appear to be negative, snide, disrespectful, offensive and/or have too much time on their hands, often has something of value to offer.
Trying to dismiss them out of hand can reflect negatively on the writer, even more so than on the one making the rebuttal. It makes it appear that the writer is addressing the person, rather than the issue, which is a very serious logical fallacy, and gives the appearance,whether right of wrong, of arrogance.
Trying to dismiss them out of hand can reflect negatively on the writer, even more so than on the one making the rebuttal. It makes it appear that the writer is addressing the person, rather than the issue, which is a very serious logical fallacy, and gives the appearance,whether right of wrong, of arrogance.
Lecia, LOL. You think you know anything about me? That's just laughable.
Allvoices is an outlet for a community of citizen journalists from all over the world to post their news and stories.
No, you don't have to write an article in order to leave a comment, but it's also not a platform for people to dump their daily load of vitriolic regurgitation, because they are unhappy, miserable people who have nothing better to do.
You will excuse me if I have no more time to waste on rebuttal--some of us have jobs and stories to write.
Allvoices is an outlet for a community of citizen journalists from all over the world to post their news and stories.
No, you don't have to write an article in order to leave a comment, but it's also not a platform for people to dump their daily load of vitriolic regurgitation, because they are unhappy, miserable people who have nothing better to do.
You will excuse me if I have no more time to waste on rebuttal--some of us have jobs and stories to write.
and i have 3 words for you: get a grip
I'm writing down here to respond to multiple comments all at once-deal with it! :)
Delilah, I agree with your points that Christians are wary of science and environmental studies, but I've found that many are open to these ideas when discussed in a personal way. The problem is that some noisy Christian leaders are against science, which tends to turn off the community. Further attacks and assumptions about the Church as a whole just completely shuts them down - why listen to people who seem to hate you and/or think you're moronic?
Firesisle, it's so great that you have a loving Church home. You're right without question, that's how it was meant to be.
Punditty, what a beautiful comment - I don't have anything to say about it, I just like it!
Delilah, I agree with your points that Christians are wary of science and environmental studies, but I've found that many are open to these ideas when discussed in a personal way. The problem is that some noisy Christian leaders are against science, which tends to turn off the community. Further attacks and assumptions about the Church as a whole just completely shuts them down - why listen to people who seem to hate you and/or think you're moronic?
Firesisle, it's so great that you have a loving Church home. You're right without question, that's how it was meant to be.
Punditty, what a beautiful comment - I don't have anything to say about it, I just like it!
so allvoices is only for journalist? it is not for people to read and voice their opinion? so you are telling EVERYONE on here if they do not post an article then they are not welcome to post comments? does allvoices know this?
and your comments are always positive and respectful and never offensive right? in this article you did not offend anyone? you are the god fearing democratic christain so you are always right and no one should ever question or criticize you?
and your comments are always positive and respectful and never offensive right? in this article you did not offend anyone? you are the god fearing democratic christain so you are always right and no one should ever question or criticize you?
i thought "the yes men" had fixed all of this? they were at work today in new york!
To be fair, environmentalists have been destructive to property, including Vail Mountain. But to my knowledge no one was hurt and it seemed special care was taken to make sure they weren't.
For some reason, I do not get a prompt to reply to Digger59, so I will reply here.
Delilah is a fine writer, no doubt about it. But look, just because a writer uses facts to back up an opinion, it doesn't mean something they've written is not an opinion piece. And that headline? Come on, there is no way in heckfire that it would be allowed in a reputable newspaper anyplace BUT the opinion page. Her opinion is based on facts, yes, but the whole article is framed in a way to lead people to believe that conservatives, more than liberals, "hate" science and environmentalists.
I wrote headlines professionally for 15 years. I won a statewide award in Kentucky. I won regional awards in California. I got cash bonuses for my words. So I do have some idea of what I am talking about. Delilah's headline is absolutely fine - on an opinion piece. But try it anywhere else in any serious newspaper, and it gets kicked back to the editor for a rewrite. As it should, because it is designed to influence people's opinions. It's like that old question from the pre-politically correct era, "Do you still beat your wife?" It is a classic example of a "loaded question."
I hope you don't think I am among those who attacked Delilah personally. If so, then I suggest you reread what I wrote. I am simply stating a fact, and the fact is that this is not a straight news article. If it were, it would get quotes from scientists who find liberals or "eco-terrorists" to be a bigger threat than conservatives.
Delilah and anyone else who wants to can *pretend* this is not an opinion piece, but by any objective standard it is. Especially, as I have said before, with that headline.
Delilah is a fine writer, no doubt about it. But look, just because a writer uses facts to back up an opinion, it doesn't mean something they've written is not an opinion piece. And that headline? Come on, there is no way in heckfire that it would be allowed in a reputable newspaper anyplace BUT the opinion page. Her opinion is based on facts, yes, but the whole article is framed in a way to lead people to believe that conservatives, more than liberals, "hate" science and environmentalists.
I wrote headlines professionally for 15 years. I won a statewide award in Kentucky. I won regional awards in California. I got cash bonuses for my words. So I do have some idea of what I am talking about. Delilah's headline is absolutely fine - on an opinion piece. But try it anywhere else in any serious newspaper, and it gets kicked back to the editor for a rewrite. As it should, because it is designed to influence people's opinions. It's like that old question from the pre-politically correct era, "Do you still beat your wife?" It is a classic example of a "loaded question."
I hope you don't think I am among those who attacked Delilah personally. If so, then I suggest you reread what I wrote. I am simply stating a fact, and the fact is that this is not a straight news article. If it were, it would get quotes from scientists who find liberals or "eco-terrorists" to be a bigger threat than conservatives.
Delilah and anyone else who wants to can *pretend* this is not an opinion piece, but by any objective standard it is. Especially, as I have said before, with that headline.
For some reason, I do not get a prompt to reply to Digger59, so I will reply here.
Delilah is a fine writer, no doubt about it. But look, just because a writer uses facts to back up an opinion, it doesn't mean the report does not constitute an opinion piece. And that headline? Come on, there is no way in heckfire that it would be allowed in a reputable newspaper anyplace BUT the opinion page. Her opinion is based on facts, yes, but the whole article is framed in a way to lead people to believe that conservatives "hate" science and environmentalists.
I wrote headlines professionally for 15 years. I won a statewide award in Kentucky. I won regional awards in California. I got cash bonuses for my words and won several monthly in-house contests and three different newspapers with circulation above 100,000 in weekday rack sales and subscribers. So I do have some idea of what I am talking about. Delilah's headline is absolutely fine - on an opinion piece. But try it anywhere else in any reputable newspaper, and it gets kicked back to the editor for a rewrite. As it should, because it is designed to influence people's opinions. It's like that old question from the pre-politically correct era, "Do you still beat your wife?" It is a classic example of a "loaded question."
I hope you don't think I am among those who attacked Delilah personally. If so, then I suggest you reread what I wrote. I am simply stating a fact, and the fact is that this is not a straight news article. If it were, it would get quotes from scientists who find liberals or "eco-terrorists" to be a bigger threat than conservatives.
Delilah and anyone else who wants to can *pretend* this is not an opinion piece, but by any objective standard it is. Especially, as I have said before, with that headline.
Delilah is a fine writer, no doubt about it. But look, just because a writer uses facts to back up an opinion, it doesn't mean the report does not constitute an opinion piece. And that headline? Come on, there is no way in heckfire that it would be allowed in a reputable newspaper anyplace BUT the opinion page. Her opinion is based on facts, yes, but the whole article is framed in a way to lead people to believe that conservatives "hate" science and environmentalists.
I wrote headlines professionally for 15 years. I won a statewide award in Kentucky. I won regional awards in California. I got cash bonuses for my words and won several monthly in-house contests and three different newspapers with circulation above 100,000 in weekday rack sales and subscribers. So I do have some idea of what I am talking about. Delilah's headline is absolutely fine - on an opinion piece. But try it anywhere else in any reputable newspaper, and it gets kicked back to the editor for a rewrite. As it should, because it is designed to influence people's opinions. It's like that old question from the pre-politically correct era, "Do you still beat your wife?" It is a classic example of a "loaded question."
I hope you don't think I am among those who attacked Delilah personally. If so, then I suggest you reread what I wrote. I am simply stating a fact, and the fact is that this is not a straight news article. If it were, it would get quotes from scientists who find liberals or "eco-terrorists" to be a bigger threat than conservatives.
Delilah and anyone else who wants to can *pretend* this is not an opinion piece, but by any objective standard it is. Especially, as I have said before, with that headline.
This is just plain silly. When I was Director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, I sometimes received ugly hate mail and threats, too. But to blame such nasty tactics on environmentalists in general would make no more sense than your assertion that conservatives hate environmentalists and scientists. That is about as logical as the absurd implication that police officlas in Boulder, Colorado are right-wingers.
Violence in third-world countries has nothing to do with the legitimate disagreements we have about natural resources policy - nothing at all. Americans seek to win elections, not kill those who disagree.
The problem so many conservatives - including me - have with the modern environmental movement is the lack of sound science behind it, not the other way around. When environmental activists oppose the recovery of endangered species because they would rather use such species as a tool to stop human activity, or when they would rather let our forests die and burn than allow a tree to be cut, we can't help concluding that they must have some agenda other than the environment. Such decisions ought to be based on sound science, but that is frequently not the case.
All people, including scientists, are entitled to their opinions. Just remember, the fact that an opinion is held by a scientist does not make it science. As long as the disagreement is really about what is best for the environment, you would be amazed at how often we might agree.
Violence in third-world countries has nothing to do with the legitimate disagreements we have about natural resources policy - nothing at all. Americans seek to win elections, not kill those who disagree.
The problem so many conservatives - including me - have with the modern environmental movement is the lack of sound science behind it, not the other way around. When environmental activists oppose the recovery of endangered species because they would rather use such species as a tool to stop human activity, or when they would rather let our forests die and burn than allow a tree to be cut, we can't help concluding that they must have some agenda other than the environment. Such decisions ought to be based on sound science, but that is frequently not the case.
All people, including scientists, are entitled to their opinions. Just remember, the fact that an opinion is held by a scientist does not make it science. As long as the disagreement is really about what is best for the environment, you would be amazed at how often we might agree.
Reported by DelilahStarling
Cell phones use report code: Most Popular Reports
Site Links
Site Topics
Contributions
- Report Your News
- Add your voice and contribute via your cellphone - check out how to Report News via Your Cellphone
- Blog Widget
- Widget for Blog Owner