2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

My reply to this post is also in reply to your earlier post, where you essentially described preservationists as 'elitist' and belittling others for deriving a 'religious' experience from nature. I think those were both ill informed and demeaning comments which prompted my own. Even if you do not think of elitism as being a bad thing, many others will take it in a negative context. Those statements make me feel comfortable in making assumptions about you. They are both catch phrases frequently used by pro-development forces to belittle environmentalists, naturalists and preservationists. Funny that you would use both of them here.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context

I am an environmentalist (obviously), and I have never NEVER thought of my actions/philosophy as being misanthropic. Places with healthy environments have an higher quality of life for the people in those areas. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, that you use, see, do, eat, breath, burn, build and walk on comes from the environment. It seems to me that being an environmentalist is being much more philanthropic than someone wanting to make a buck at any cost.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Fine, you keep it simple don't you? What is unnatural about people, is when their activities reduce the diversity, stability and efficiency of the ecology of the ecosystem they impact.

We (people) get to make the decisions of how we live. Which is why we are having this discussion. It is a stupid decision that reduces the carrying capacity of the planet we are depended on. It is a smart one that benefits the environment, thereby increasing these qualities.

Take a class or something, this is not rocket science.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Actually, there is nothing elitist about wanting to keep a beautiful area open to the public and not for expensive second homes for the super rich. There is nothing outdated about wanting to preserve what tiny amount of nature is left in the world. In fact, there has never been a greater need to protect what is obviously a rather unique place. The population of the area is growing at an amazing rate, and there is a real need for outdoor experiences for residents of the area. And whether you want to classify them as some strange group who raises this experience to 'religious' or not, there are a lot of us. If you don't care about beauty in a landscape, why do you even live here? Try New Jersey next time you move.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context

I think it is shameful that the developers and Warm Springs tribe want to leave a legacy of greed in such an amazing place. What if we had allowed pirates to develop Yosemite or Yellow Stone! Gambling is by its nature a compulsive act and can be done anywhere. A scenic experience in the Gorge is by its nature introspective and can only be experienced in the Gorge. There has to be limits to growth. When will the takers of the Gorge be satisfied?

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context