Well if people would stand up to them instead of backing down they would get the message. I really do think it is sad that they want to treat the kids like this. It is clearly the kids who suffer from this. I was in the cub scouts for a short period of time and I enjoyed it. If you asked me today if I would put my kids in the program I would honestly have to think about it. This policy of not admitting gays is wrong to me. They are a private organization so I can't dictate their policies, but since they don't agree with me then I wouldn't be able to have any dealings with them
He talks a good game and I'm not sure how he can sincerely believe the Koch Brothers are "just another source" on Climate Change. Also curious how "radical deregulation" and "creating a safety net" will happen when historically they've been at odds.
LGBTQ does not equal NSFW, but it has been the common practice of the Internet to segregate this community from mainstream America. As a result, anyone using the Internet has been exposed to and conditioned to believe LGBTQ = NSFW. So, personally, I don't think it's the complete fault of organizations to erroneously ban anything tagged LGBTQ. I think those who run popular websites that link the tag to NSFW are equally, if not more culpable for creating a culture of segregation and discrimination. In response to this article, I've created a petition specifically directed to one of the popular websites as a first step towards reshaping the culture of the Internet. http://www.causes.com/actions/1722768
How about subsidizing local organic family farms to a great percentage degree than mega-corp commercial agribusiness?? most small farms naturally rotate crops and livestock to balance nutrient/toxin load build-up reducing the need for unnatural chemicals - problems happen when commercial agribusiness has profit margins to meet and crop yields forced by use of disease & predator proof seeds while fumigating soils with poisonous pesticides, fungicides, herbicides (i.e. Monsanto GMO'd crops)...
Kevin - I certainly own that I may be too skeptical, but my conclusion isn't so far off from your's I don't think. We both would really like to see this become a real research priority in public health and in other fields. Your original post was really very good, but I mainly just wanted to brace my readers (really it was just my friends until today) that there could be a very legitimate reason why the compelling stories they read don't necessarily translate into regulatory action. I think the challenge from your article should be a call to researchers to really pick up on doing longitudinal investigations, rather than for activists to demand action now and likely be disappointed when it might not work. I'm very impressed with your willingness to engage with all sorts of critiques on this. I guess I gotta get used to that part now myself!
In addition to the habits I've managed to develop -- live in a small home, drive as little as possible, recycle and freecycle as much as I can, always carry my canvas bags to shop, use very fewer commercial cleaners -- I'm determined to be more politically active on environmental issues. I will write at least one email/letter a week to legislators, newspapers, or other influential people reminding them that they have the power to make better choices.
Thank you so much for writing this, Deborah Nelson! It's sad to think all the "humane treatment" and "positive reinforcement" claims have been lies! I don't intend to go to another elephant show (went once as a kid) after reading this. It's heartbreaking to know how they treat them!
I can hardly make it working two jobs. I commend anyone who is skilled enough to stretch >$60 a month. The US puts down the poor like there is something wrong with not being rich. We shouldn't make people feel guilt for living minimally. There's no reason to feel guilty or worthless if you have little money. What's in your pocket is not a reflection of intelligence.