Daniel Duane understands … and all it took was an open mind and one experience. The term “environmentalist” always has a negative connotation to me when I hear it because I always think about the groups of “environmentalists” out there who never try to see the other side. It is obvious that there a groups of environmentalists out there who are capable of trying to understand, but that are given the image of a bunch of kooks because of the groups that absolutely blinded by their own positions; a lot like groups of hunters who are given the image of killer rednecks because of irresponsible hunters who are similarly blinded and see no problem “harvesting” everything in sight because they can. I am glad that Daniel had the opportunity to see a real hunter so he could see that we love nature just as much as any environmentalist — we just appreciate it in a different way.
Thanks to Daniel for the open mind, and thanks to Mother Jones for relating his experience.
This is a classic case of “cognitive dissonance.” Only a turncoat can get so enthusiaistic about supporting something he vehemently opposed in the past. Shortly, Duane will probably go to Falluja and give a glowing account about “how democracy is taking root among the gun pocked ruins…”
This article touches on a great blind spot in the general liberal thinking. Meat doesn’t come from factories. Those of us who eat meat should acknowledge that we are killing animals.
Hunting serves the human psyche as well as putting meat on the table. Living in a rural area, I have seen many people shake their heads with distain when confronted with anti-hunting views from people who are buying meat in neat little packages.
In terms of quality of life, and often death, the animal raised in a modern farm is disadvantaged compared to the hunted animal. Also, there is nothing like killing and butchering your own meat to give you perspective and respect for the animals you eat.
The author makes some great points. However, until the left stops it’s support of abortion and the promotion of homosexuality, the vast majority of the religious
community will continue voting against them. The
author makes the assumption that the fight against poverty and the fight against abortion and homosexuality-promotion are either/or issues. The religious right already financially fights poverty proportionally way beyond the rest of the country.
However, it is easier to write a check than to become personally involved which is where the religious right could use some guidance and leadership from the left.
This is an excellent article. I have no experience with regard to the subject, but common sense tells me that your conclusions are right on track. The same goes for what Mr Jacobson indicates in his book. I believe the church establisment would be a valuable ally. You might be aware of certainprograms that currently exist in churches around the country. I’m not religious in the conventional sense, but spiritual in nature. My main point is that I believe, in this case, less government and politics and more communitiy involvement might get better results. I might also be inclined to become involved myself.
Donald C Owens
For non-violent offenders we should cut back on the technicality offenses. Get them proven help to obtain employment and residency out of old drug “home” areas. Don’t send relapsing drug users back to prison if they have committed no other crimes.
Get some “Bush” money for faith based drug rehab programs. Make him put his money where his words are. Open up some space for drug offenders.