word.

Wag @ 2:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5197

look out...

Thats one brave woman

"This is a fairly big deal, as Progressive Maryland is a grassroots group that spearheaded a successful living wage campaign."

"Living wage campaign"

Woah, this just sounds like a flashy way of saying that the minimum wage was increased. I wonder who her economic advisor is...Mr. Bean?

The Sierra Club are scam artists who work under the failed ideology of conservationism (they waste their money and are all bark but no teeth), but an endorsement from them isn't a bad thing to hold up.

swarmofkillermonkeys @ 8:

GLA @ 7:

The Sierra Club are scam artists who work under the failed ideology of conservationism (they waste their money and are all bark but no teeth), but an endorsement from them isn't a bad thing to hold up.

I'm no fan of the Sierra Club (self important jerks) for various reasons, but is the ideology of "conservationism" really that flawed? News to me. How so?

Of course the ideology of conservationism is flawed. It is based on the mistaken beliefs that the world's resources are finite, for one thing, and that nature has intrinsic value.

There is no limit to what we can use in order to better our lives. We have barely scratched the surface of the Earth, and already the scaredy cats and monkey-people are saying we are doomed. These children should be ignored

Wag @ 9:

swarmofkillermonkeys @ 8:

GLA @ 7:

The Sierra Club are scam artists who work under the failed ideology of conservationism (they waste their money and are all bark but no teeth), but an endorsement from them isn't a bad thing to hold up.

I'm no fan of the Sierra Club (self important jerks) for various reasons, but is the ideology of "conservationism" really that flawed? News to me. How so?

Of course the ideology of conservationism is flawed. It is based on the mistaken beliefs that the world's resources are finite, for one thing, and that nature has intrinsic value.

There is no limit to what we can use in order to better our lives. We have barely scratched the surface of the Earth, and already the scaredy cats and monkey-people are saying we are doomed. These children should be ignored

Er, OK. I'm not sure I understand you. Unless you're being obscurely sarcastic... Monkey-people want to stop you from burrowing to the center of the earth? Fascinating. What has that to do with conservationism (note: this isn't the "wear a sweater and burn less coal" kind of conservation)?

Since conservation is more than just a core belief of progressivism, it is also an ethic shared by the most right-wing hunters and sportsmen. And it is at least on the periphery of most religions as well.

At its simplest, it is the idea of setting aside enough unmanaged or minimally managed, contiguous land to preserve wildlife resource pools and intact ecosystems until we can better learn to integrate modern society and habits with natural processes. We can and do destroy entire ecosystems, and due to our ignorance, overpopulation, and immature technology cannot completely reconstruct these ecosystems when they are gone. So it really is a very basic idea that even children can understand, yes, but by no means without power or truth. It is an essential truth that the worlds LIVING resources ARE obviously finite, particularly at the species level and down. Unless you think that baby North American Bison are delivered via space-stork in a diaper, it is conservation that allowed the survival of the species.

I suppose you could argue that NOT having the maximal number of "tools" and resources available for human use (including biological) doesn't hurt our chances to "better our lives". But that is such a farcical idea that if one truly believes it, rational discussion with that person may not be possible. If you haven't seen the need for providing natural, self-propagating resource pools and protecting genetic diversity (as opposed to our clumsy artificial monocultures propped up by petroleum) by now, you just aren't paying attention.

This doesn't mean that we can't also exploit mineral resources, or build out cities. Quite the opposite, I think conservationism can be selfish more than altruistic. Simply, it is in our OWN best interests not to literally "shit where we eat".

I really wish her luck with this one. I only wish we could run someone like her against all the bad democrats and we have more then our share to deal with.

There is no environmentalism without conservation.

If the habitat is lost, the species go with it.

The rise of diseases like Lyme disease have been DIRECTLY linked to the development of housing tracts, where forests are reduced to postage stamp 'groves.' Those groves are excellent habitat for rodents, but won't support the hawks and other predators of rodents. The effect is that the ticks which feed on the rodents bite humans who are using these tiny enclaves of nature, and Lyme disease -- a debilitating neurological illness -- is spread.

Non-conservation spreads disease. Non-conservation leaves behind little groves that support urban rodents, but not country species that the preceding forest supported.

If you think human beings need more diseases, then fail to conserve. This supposed 'environmentalism' that fails to conserve is shortsightedly damaging human life as well as animal life.