You are in Guest mode. If you want to post, you'll need to register (we promise it's painless).
Registered users should log in now. (Forgot your password?)

Guest-accessible forum This forum allows unregistered guests access to read. You must register to post in this forum.

Nature_and_Environment.98

Crunchy Cons

--------

{Nature_and_Environment.98.4}: Red {redleader} Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:19:39 CST (55 lines)

I admit that I don't think the author was that clear on what he would
support or oppose politically. I think he was more generally pro-
environment, than Bush's lot (which wouldn't be hard).

I have seen some other examples. He mentions a wife of a petroleum
company executive who homeschools her eight kids. She was once a
petroleum company manager but says, "I feel like my kids are getting a
real childhood."  My mother who taught school for 38 years and now
designs and promotes math curricula at the elementary school level, is
NOT a big fan of homeschooling. And her objections are NOT about
"socialization" so much, because she thinks kids actually get more
socialization from church, family, and neighborhood than school. But
she feels very strongly that homeschooling often means a very poor
education and that problems like dyslexia can too easily go
undiagnosed in that environment. She feels that even if the parent is
a certified teacher than homeschooling is not a better education. She
doesn't recommend it unless it's the only alternative to an extremely
long commute, or a "moving around" situation where the child ends up
in multiple classrooms a year.

  As a former kid, I also feel that the public school I went to was
better than Catholic school. And I try to make it very clear that my
preference WAS about the quality of education, not the religion (I
went to cathechism for years afterward willingly.), nor because of
nuns with rulers or anything like that (this was Vatican II).

  Several of the listed "crunchy cons" expressed distrust for the
"hysterical environmentalists" but still made comments about not
wanting to destroy small town America, or turn all the farms and
forests into suburbs.

   One said that he thought environmentalists were just "conservatives
who want to eat fresh vegetables".

   To me this in a classic example of rejecting a philosophy without
truly understanding its positions. Basically I feel like he enjoys
some of the things that have been popularized in part by by the
ecology movement such as organic vegetables and walkable communities,
but really doesn't *get* the larger concerns of environmentalists.

   Another thing he said that undermined his credibility was that he
enjoyed listening to both Garrison Keillor and Rush Limbaugh. A number
of conservative commentators, I could have rolled with, but Limbaugh's
constant disrespect for logic and costant use of broad ad hominem
attacks on "liberals", "environuts" and "feminazis" (most of which are
created him by taking the most cherry picked outrageous and out of
context examples and twisting in his own signature way), just didn't
help his arguement. Especially considering how much he mentioned old
fashioned civil discourse as another "crunchy con" core value.

  Basically the best case that can be made from these crunchy cons, in
my view is that common stereotypes of liberals and conservatives don't
always hold up. Basically these crunchy cons are political palecons
and often religious traditionalists, whose lifestyle choices don't fit
the "Walmart shopping, beer guzzling, and NASCAR loving" stereotype.

Guest-accessible forum This forum allows unregistered guests access to read. You must register to post in this forum.

You are in Guest mode. If you want to post, you'll need to register (we promise it's painless).
Registered users should log in now. (Forgot your password?)

The New Café  Home | Your Hotlist and Directory | Independent Partner Forums |
FAQ | User Guidelines | Privacy Policy