Uncategorized

Readers talk back about Lakoff, immature humor, homeschoolers, and more

  Re: Don’t Think of the Environment Dear Editor: First, full disclosure: I am a former grad student of George Lakoff’s and was a research associate at the Rockridge Institute for several months. That should make my biases obvious. Amanda Griscom Little’s March 29 piece about Lakoff’s work with the Green Group provides some interesting […]

The cultural profile of environmentalism has drifted free of reality

John and Jamais make a great point. Media reaction to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment focused, almost without exception, on gloom and doom -- the grim catalogue of what is currently wrong and the most apocalyptic scenario of where things could go from here. But the MEA contained much more than that, including several scenarios in which things change and improve in various ways. Read their posts for specifics on those scenarios.

I meant to address this way back when I was bitching at Nicholas Kristof, who complained about the "alarmism and extremism" of the green movement.

The cultural profile of environmentalism seems to have taken on a life of its own. "Environmentalism" means shouting about how the world's going to hell and condemning everyone who doesn't agree to live like a monk. When an environmental issue is covered in the media, that's how it gets covered -- if it doesn't fit that template, it's either forced in or ignored. When the public sees that kind of story, its eyes glaze. It all becomes -- for the green groups, those who consider them enemies, the groups' individual members, and the public at large -- incredibly predictable, and like anything predictable, it becomes background noise.

For a look at a particularly undiluted, flat-footed presentation of that stereotype ...

We can’t make this stuff up

Funny thing: We thought about writing something like this and slipping it in as one of our April Fool's stories. But we knew no one would buy it.

Spare the Rod, Foil the Riled

Spent nuclear fuel vulnerable to terrorist attacks, experts warn Despite its renewed popularity (even Umbra’s giving it a second look!), nuclear power makes the eggheads at the National Academy of Sciences nervous. Specifically, a new NAS report raises red flags about the dangers posed by possible terrorist attacks on the pools of spent fuel rods […]

Comment on the new Grist ads

You may notice that Gristmill has just now joined Grist proper in being graced with advertisements.

If you have any thoughts on the matter -- umbrage, kudos, thumbs up or down -- this is the place to express them.

Photos of Iceland reveal a land of extremes

Photos: © Layne Kennedy In case you haven’t heard, we’re giving away a trip to Iceland. As a result, this photo essay is a bit of a divergence from our usual tough-as-nails coverage, wherein the prettiest pictures we run are of, well, politicians. But we’re not just shilling here — Iceland is a hotbed of […]

Hunting Irony

Alaskan wolves, bears hunted for hunting what the hunters want to hunt These are not the best of times for Alaska’s wolves and bears. A well-studied family of wolves in Denali National Park recently lost two senior females when they wandered outside park borders and were killed by trappers; a similar fate may befall the […]

Good stuff on anti-enviro Supreme Court justices and more

We're having a long meeting today to discuss editorial strategy, so there will be no more blogging. (Horrors!)

To keep yourselves occupied, check out two pieces in the Atlantic Monthly. First and most importantly, Benjamin Wittes argues persuasively that the biggest danger posed by the possibility of a majority-conservative Supreme Court is not to abortion or civil rights, but to environmental protections. It's a thoughtful, nuanced piece with some interesting details I wasn't aware of. You should stop reading this and go read that instead.

While you're over there, read Joshua Green's Lakoff-bashing. Green obviously has a pretty shallow understanding of what Lakoff is about, but he is right about one thing: Progressives need new institutions and new ideas, not just new glosses on the old ideas.

And speaking of Lakoff-bashing, check out this priceless Ezra Klein post, wherein he makes the same point I made here (after, it turns out, Klein had already made it), which is that Lakoff himself is pretty damn bad at framing. It's amusing. Here's a funny bit:

After the election, I read Lakoff's book for a review I was doing. I was stunned. The guy's recommendations seemed completely ignorant of everything else he said. Frames, for instance, bring to mind a host of contexts and other information. So the strict father frame the Republicans use immediately paints Democrats as mommy. And while mom is awesome, it's dad you call when you hear noises downstairs late at night. That's how Republicans win elections, they basically mount the stage and say "did you hear that, America? I think I heard someone jiggling the door downstairs! Now would you rather have George Bush and his bat go check it out, or should we send John Kerry and his baguette?" So Lakoff responds to this by suggesting that Democrats become a gender neutral nurturing parent, which simply doesn't exist, and would actually just mean mom.

Read it all.

Will KIA’s ads give car sharing a boost?

Last night, mindless TV called. An ad came on that I've seen before, but never focused on. It's for the KIA Sportage (which I really want to pronounce with a lovely French accent), and shows a series of people driving the same car, tossing the keys to each other as they go. Wow: car sharing hits prime time! This is almost as good as hybrids on Alias.

I know, I know, I'm being too literal. KIA's point is simply that this vehicle works for all kinds of different people. But along the way, the company makes sharing a car look pretty darn zippy. Maybe it'll get viewers thinking ... (naw -- see first line).

Evangelical enviros leery of associating with, uh, enviros

Richard Cizik, head of the National Association of Evangelicals, is heavily hawking the notion of "creation care" these days.  (That would be God-flavored environmentalism, for those not in the know.)

Three weeks ago, he chatted up the concept with NPR's Scott Simon (whom I wholly adore, but that's a topic for another post).  

This past weekend, he got his mug and his pitch in The New York Times Magazine, via a Q&A with Deborah Solomon.  An excerpt:  

Q: What is wrong with [the] term [environmentalism]?

A: It's not the term. It's the environmentalists themselves. I was recently speaking with the leadership of the Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Federation, and I told them, ''Gentlemen, I respect you, but at this point don't plan on any formal collaborations.''

Q: Why? Because they lean to the left?

A: Environmentalists have a bad reputation among evangelical Christians for four reasons. One, they rely on big-government solutions. Two, their alliance with population-control movements. Three, they keep kooky religious company.

Q: What is your idea of a kooky religion?

A: Some environmentalists are pantheists who believe creation itself is holy, not the Creator.

Q: And what's No. 4?

A: There's a certain gloom and doom about environmentalists. They tend to prophecies of doom that don't happen. Look at the movie "The Day After Tomorrow," in which New York City freezes over.

The evangelicals don't want to play with the enviros, and -- sad, but true -- that's probably smart strategizing. The Christian right already knows how to get Bush's attention, and Rove's devotion. Can any green groups say the same?