Skip to main content

View Diary: Top Comments: The Max Headroom Incident (133 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That is a pretty funny image of the big dog, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chrislove, bastrop, Steveningen

    in his briefs and Maddow on in the background.

    You make some great points.
    I particularly like the idea of finding something not just tolerant of my politics but where it would be seen as a compelling advantage.

    When one says it like "one's politics" don't we convey a slightly negative connotation?

    Whereas the way I see it, environmentalism is a consequence of good science.

    Smart beings wouldn't trash the ecosystems required for survival.

    Even stating it as "survival" seem crude. What would be more accurate is a equation where Quality of Life for the average person on the planet, and for all the groups important to me, (which includes mankind and all the non-conscious beings in our ecosystems) is a function of the health of the econsystem which would include a lack of poisons in our drinking waters, and food chains.

    And, would include prosperity, and in the long-term, sustainable agriculture is more profitable than depleting non-renewable resources, soil, losing habitats etc.

    Seeing pictures of areas that were once lush tropical rainforests brimming with diverse species producing economic value in the form of pharmaceuticals, sustainable food, and lumber production, and many other values renewable resouces, deforested with slash and burn land clearing and strip logging, and then seeing all the soil run off into the ocean because of no system of living roots, to hold the soil is not just tragic but stupid.

    So, do you see what I'm suggesting bastrop? Being an environmentalist to me isn't really a "latent emotional weakness, of having succumbed to "politics'" but rather is evidence of a lifetime invested in learning biology, chemistry, mathematics, systems theory, economics, geography, environmental science and public health, plus a fairly disciplined habit of reading more in a year than many people read in a lifetime from the time I was about 8 or so years old, and every year hence without any exception.

    And, remembering most of it, and thinking and talking about it enough, that I can immediately access a story, book, or author on quite of few of the topics of critical importance to our survival on our planet in the long-term.

    Your idea of finding a place where such "politics" or vast wealth of understanding about how how ecosystems work," wasn't just "tolerated" but appreciated as an important way I could contribute to a groups success which was dedicated to doing everything imaginable of improving our chances as surviving and thriving together would be ideal.

    I could put together a similar resume for working for more equitable distribution of wealth, based on Maslow's hierarchy of need satisfaction -- a planet with billions of creative, healthy, prosperous, thriving and self-actualizing citizens living under egalitarian, democratic governments, with strong institutions of independent judicial systems and free presses.  To me this is science and compassion based wisdom, not a vice like set of "politics I should have to hide to be employable." I should be a proud role model for people willing to dedicate their life to gaining knowledge and refining their capacity of intellect and  powers of communication.

    Wouldn't it be great if some progressive Billionaires like maybe Bill Gates put up enough funding for educational institutes to advance such perspectives as a counter to the Koch brothers efforts to subvert democracy and replace it with oligarchy, and repeal every  wise and sensible environmentalism regulation and agency, so their fossil fuel burning business can maximize short-term profits at the cost of the long-term viability of our ecosystems, social systems and democracy?

    Any way, you are correct in noticing I was supposed to be off to bed 3 hours ago.

    I am such a bad dog. ... A really bad dog.  

    Woof, woof!

    "Seriously, Folks, WTH?" - ("What the Heck? "h/t Joan McCarter, Seriously, Florida. WTF?)

    by HoundDog on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 11:33:52 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  In sleeping on this (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chrislove, Steveningen, HoundDog

      it's clearer to me what you want to do now. I'm seeing what the dilemma is a little differently and can appreciate why you are considering this.

      It's important for you to try and insert that perspective given your background in the industry. The no fly for conferences based on writing in that field is a legit concern. So could be the heavy political emphasis outside if the environmental issues you want to promote.

      •  Thanks bastrop, for helping me clarify my thinking (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bastrop, Chrislove

        an expression.

        For some reason, my communications seem more understandable in conversation with someone else, rather than when I'm just talking on my own.

        Thanks.

        No I just need to find one of the many people with a talent for brevity boil this down to a few sentences of what I was really trying to say.

        Like wouldn't it be great if I could find a job where being a Democrat who believe science and government can play an important roles in  protecting our environment and other aspects of the common good, with sensibe, wise, and prudent regulations, wasn't held against me?

        Since, I have been so foolish as to openly express views like that here under my HoundDog name, how do I create a plausible "more respectable" track record set of UIDs more consistent with a higher profile positions where the custom is not to make any remarks in public that might be "problematic" for anyone on the Bell curve of public opinions, even in red states.

        I suppose I could issue a sort of general apology, like:'

        "I'm sorry if any of my previous statements appearing to support science based inquiry, and reasoned discuss in public policy have been misunderstood.

        I regret any confusion such statements may have caused, to those who don't believe in science, or reasoned public discourse and retract them.
        I can offer no excuse, but only explain that I've always tried to be a good person, but  seem to have fallen in with the "wrong crowd" after going to some of the finest Universities in America.

        I have now severed my ties with these educational institution and canceled my subscription to Scientific American and Discover Magazine and checked my self into Rehab.

        I look forward to returning one day as a productive member of society.

        "Seriously, Folks, WTH?" - ("What the Heck? "h/t Joan McCarter, Seriously, Florida. WTF?)

        by HoundDog on Sat Apr 19, 2014 at 11:44:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Biggest mistake you can ever make is to (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          HoundDog, Chrislove

          preemptively apologize for your position. Second biggest is to apologize when the belief expressed is purely held. Don't do that to yourself. It damages your position and leaves you less credible in the eyes of a readership, whether sharing your position or not. And for those unsure if they agree, if you are unsure then they won't listen. Why listen to a position qualified by self doubt?

          In my mind the power of our words shouldnt be tempered to make you palatable to people who disagree.  Own it, use your belief to your advantage by projecting strength, let the chips fall.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site