Funny thing happened at work. I get all kinds of email from the university announce list. Yesterday I get a rant email about the faculty and staff picnic they had in the gardens.
Quote:
I realize how hard it is--changing peoples behaviours and attitudes is almost impossible I am sure but::
at the facualty staff and retiree picnic I was really bothered with the
lack of coordinated recycling..
I believe should have very PROMINENT and DISTINCTIVE containers right as people entered and greeters who stated "please place your pop can and plastic bottles in the recycle cans...and then the people who passed out the cans of pop remind the people we are trying to be green so please recycle the can up front..and then have signs posted on the white trash cans say--recycle the cans and bottles please...
|
To which a devote Republican (you can tell) replied with the all to common personal responsibility crap:
Quote:
|
There should also be someone there as we leave to remind us to go potty if we need to before returning to work.
|
Which prompted another reply:
Quote:
|
At an institution of learning, I don't see why people can't be taught to be aware of recycling?
|
To which I finally replied:
Quote:
|
You can't teach a Republican anything they don't believe in.
|
OMG ..... the floodgates opened and my Inbox was filled with 30 emails saying how unfair my comment was.
Here is one juicy email in my inbox which of course was also broadcasted to the announce list.
Quote:
Thank you so much for educating me on the fact that all Republicans do not recycle! It makes so much sense, as Republicans are so intellectually inferior to liberals that we simply can't understand something as complicated as placing trash into recycling containers where appropriate. I guess we'd just rather grab our bibles and shotguns, jump into our gas guzzling American made pick-up trucks, and then head down to the holler to throw our trash off a ridge.
Your statement was undoubtedly offensive to a large group of
individuals that read this email, not to mention inaccurate.
|
Which of course got me thinking.
Offensive yes... but inacurate?
I couldn't resist...tried to fight it...but couldn't so I sent this to the announce list and have not heard from a single person who was so fucking outraged at me. hehe
Do ya think I struck a nerve?
Quote:
My statement was called "undoubtedly offensive to a large group of individuals ..., not to mention grossly incorrect."
Offensive... probably..but incorrect? I'll wager no. No in the sence that you can't teach a Republican to recycle if they don't believe in environmentalism. I said that you can't teach a Republican anything they don't believe in. Do some Republicans recycle? Yes. Do Republicans believe in conservation or our natural resources, or a clean and renewable energy policy? Do they believe in environmentalism whether it be conservation, recycling, or renewable energy?
The jury is still out on that because I really don't know.
Year after year Republicans work to strip language out of bills that they deem harmful to business or their corporate masters. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference if the bill is a major environmental bill that would reduce carbon emissions, or increase fuel standards. It is not their concern.... it is a liberal issue. Just yesterday Mitt Romney announced on national television that fuel efficiency are necessarily “liberal” issues. Romney may very well turn out to be John McCain's running mate.
What are Americans to think when a possible vice presidential candidate says "fuel efficiency are necessarily “liberal” issues?"
Bush just weakened the EPA environmental rules on building power plants near national parks which shows how willingly the GOP genuflects before the Coal lobbyist.
Today almost everybody thinks that a Republican is supposed to be anti-environmental, and that if you care about protecting the environment you must be a Democrat. And that's a shame. Look - the GOP is free to claim that only "liberals and wackos" care about environmental issues, but don't start crying when these stereotypes come back and bite you.
This is the same GOP that Republican voters continue to keep in office. A stereotype that you, if you are a Republican, continue to perpetuate.
Republicans have made virtually no contribution to the environmental/conservation movement of the past 50 years except Nixon signing the Endangered Species Act. Why?
In my opinion, Republicans tend to be reactionary (in the technical sense) as RESPONSE to citizen initiatives.
But the larger point is that Republicans have NOT lead but have delayed and opposed or ONLY responded. There is no recent tradition of Republican environmentalism whether it be conservation, recycling, or renewable energy.
Republicans will never out-spend or out-regulate the Democrats on environmental issues, and efforts to "me-too" the issue will look lukewarm and insincere (ala John McCain).
I think some Republicans fear that addressing the environment means they must support the agenda of environmental activists. There is no doubt that many Republicans are working on real solutions that address environmental concerns, and many more will do so only when they stop looking to Liberal Democrats as the standard for environmental purity.
On one side some Republicans are lauded for essentially adopting the position of Democrats and environmentalists. On the other, some Republicans go ballistic against those opposing their environmental point of view, and whose loathing of environmentalists and environmentalism seems to permeate everything they say or do. The list is quite long of Republican Senators and Congressmen who consistently score low on the Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP) scorecard. In 2005, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions voted against all 15 issues considered environmentally critical by the REP. From 2003 - 2004 Republican Senator from Kentucky Mitch McConnell voted against every environmental bill put before him. In 2007 Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe scored a -4. The 2005-2007 average for Republican Senator Christopher Bond from Missouri has been a big fat goose egg. If it is a fact that passenger vehicles burn two of every five barrels of oil used in this country, why in 2003 would every Republican vote against a proposal that would have required automakers to produce a fleet average of 40 miles per gallon by 2015. With gas over $4 a gallon I can guess this hits home for quite a few Americans.
It seems a pity Republicans continue to be viewed so negatively by the public on the environment when some do have something to offer on the topic. The problem is this perception is largely created by their own actions and words. It is created by the type of politician they vote in office to represent them.
I'll accuse Republicans when it's warranted and when the accusation can be backed up. I may not have put this accusation in the proper context, but on it's face it is not an incorrect statement.
And FYI... this is coming from a former Republican who voted "R" in 1984, 1988, 1992, and 1996.
|
06-27-2008, 10:33 AM
Religion is an Illusion of Control!
Linear Mode
