Green evangelicals

ABC News asks a question: "Evangelicals Go Green -- Will Conservative Candidates Follow Suit?"

Answer: No.

The headline writer who penned that question does a disservice to Christina Caron's useful article surveying the widening embrace of "creation care, or a Bible-based environmentalism." Caron talks to a good mix of regular folks, and the experts she interviews are actual experts rather than the self-appointed spokespeople and media hounds that usually worm their way into articles about evangelicals.

(Other reporters take note: John C. Green has the real numbers; Cal DeWitt is a real environmentalist; Rich Cizik is a conservative evangelical, but not a partisan agent taking orders from Karl Rove. Their contact info is easy to find. More like this, please.)

Caron doesn't really address the headline writer's question about whether or not "conservative candidates" might adopt more "green" positions to cater to evangelical voters. But those candidates all have access to the polling data from the past few decades that supports the idea that environmental concern doesn't usually translate into votes. Environmental issues poll well, but exit polls asking voters to list the prime reasons for their votes don't reveal a significant bloc of voters driven by those issues.

The deciding factor for most evangelical voters -- including, based on their own words, the green evangelicals Caron talked to -- is still abortion politics. My guess is that while the folks Caron talked to might prefer a candidate who was both anti-abortion and anti-greenhouse gas, but when that option doesn't present itself, they'll settle for a candidate who is the former but not the latter. And I'd bet the current crop of GOP candidates is guessing the same thing.

Environmental concern among evangelicals is not yet so powerful that it can compete with abortion politics as the preeminent factor in their political engagement, but that does not mean that it is not real or that it is not growing. So regardless of who they actually end up voting for in 2008, the evangelicals Caron discusses are people who will support -- and maybe even demand -- environmental policies from the next president. That's encouraging.

(A related matter, also encouraging, is that Caron's article shows that more evangelicals are beginning to question the bargain they have made by establishing themselves as reliable single-issue voters.)

Comments

[M Groesbeck]

I wonder if this might be a more significant issue in the Republican primaries than in the general election. IIRC the Republican candidates in the Presidential race are pretty united in supporting state control over reproduction (and I've seen few races where this is not the case), so a bit of support based on environmental policies is more likely to be a determining factor among Republican candidates. While in recent years the Democrats have been much more inclined to push towards the right than Republicans have been to push towards the center, within the otherwise-united Republican party a preference for at least the appearance of basic environmental responsibility might have a balancing effect.

[Scott]

Oh, joy. Evilvangelicals will fully embrace their authoritarian, submissive nature ("I'm going to MAKE YOU submit to my strong leader, which is the will of the baby Jeebus") and adopt both the right's and the left's controlling policies. I'm so happy I need a change of underwear right now.

[Jeff]

I'm so happy I need a change of underwear right now.

I don't think it's because you're happy...

[LMM]

supporting state control over reproduction

Well, there's a polite way to put it.

Honestly, if they don't put an end to greenhouse gas emissions, it won't be the fetuses who are dying.

[Sonja]

I have, for years, followed the letters to the editor of the Grand Rapids (Mich.) Press. I grew up there and have lived in several cities since, large and small. I've found the GR Press to be representative of the many mid-size cities and smaller towns that, together, make up the swath of red on the electoral map.

The following excerpt is a typical GR response to an article about global warming:
________________________________________
The column "End global warming, buy a push mower" (Press, August 11) was just as ridiculous as the title. If the columnist believes so strongly in God's word, he would have remembered Noah and the flood and how God promised with a rainbow that he would never destroy the Earth with water again.

Why are we so hyped over global warming and rising seas? Sure, as Christians we have a responsibility to take care of God's Earth -- but worrying about a second flood? This would be unbelief!

"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things (Mathew 6)"

[Brandi]

I'm so happy I need a change of underwear right now.

So that Ayn Rand buttplug fit pretty well into your personal Galt's Gulch, did it?

[Rich]

M Groesbeck:
IIRC the Republican candidates in the Presidential race are pretty united in supporting state control over reproduction (and I've seen few races where this is not the case)

This is incorrect. Republican candidates are pretty united in restricting abortion, but with the exception of rape victims restricting abortion has nothing to do with state control over reproduction. If abortion were banned everywhere, nobody's reproductive choices would be restricted*. When abortion is illegal, everyone is still allowed to not have kids if they don't want to. Here is a very simple procedure for any woman to follow if she does not want to have kids: Don't have sex.

One could argue that Republicans want to restrict the ability of people to have consequences free sex; I would agree with that statement. But "consequences free sex" and "reproduction" are not the same thing.**

so a bit of support based on environmental policies is more likely to be a determining factor among Republican candidates.

This I agree with. Just because evangelical voters consider abortion rights (or the lack thereof) to be the most important criteria doesn't mean that they won't choose from among the Republican candidates based on environmental policy.

* - Again, excepting rape victims.

** - For the record, I am in favor of first trimester abortions for all rape victims. I am in favor of all abortions to save the life of the mother. Otherwise, I would outlaw all third trimester abortions and am undecided on the first two trimesters.

[hapax]

Rich: Here is a very simple procedure for any woman to follow if she does not want to have kids: Don't have sex.

(hapax goes and makes popcorn, vowing to stay out of it this time)

[hapax]

Bold be gone!

[MichaelR]

How come Scott's posts aren't given routine vowelectomies like the rest of the spammers? He's completely incapable of making any kind of a point. He just masturbates furiously over how if you think that throwing poor people to the wolves might not be a good way to run a society, you're an EVIL POWERHUNGRY ASSHOLE or something.

[Rich]

hapax:
(hapax goes and makes popcorn, vowing to stay out of it this time)

I hope you enjoy the show. :)

To sum up my position (so that everyone can attack it easily), here it is:

When abortion is legal in any or all cases, women are free not to have children if they don't want to.

When abortion is illegal except in cases of rape, women are free not to have children if they don't want to.

Thus, outlawing abortion except in cases of rape in no way affects the reproductive rights of women. It does affect their rights to have sex.

This position has nothing to do with whether or not abortion is right or wrong, it is merely a statement of fact.

With that said, let the show begin. Hapax, enjoy your popcorn.

[Spalanzani]

Hey, Hapax: I'll share my milkduds with you if you'll let me have some of your popcorn.
(gets first-row seat)

[grenadine]

I would hope that thinking people (be they R, D, or Other) will carefully consider the ramifications of selling their votes based on one single issue, if only because thinking people know that Really Important Issues are not discrete. If you truly care about life, then you should have strong opinions not only on abortion, but also on air quality, the death penalty, consumer product safety, and health care. To vote for a candidate that has pronounced a stand on the first issue but remained hazy on the others is sloppy citizenship.

It's far, far too easy for candidates to spout out some magic words ("Labor Unions are the backbone of America!" "Culture of Life!" "I got Jesus!" "Close down Gitmo!") and suddenly gain the unwavering acceptance of whatever demographic that appeals to. We need to get past this type of do or die single-issue shite. Politicians spend the bulk of their time working on mundane, non-sexy policy issues based on money, not morality. We should be a lot more concerned with a candidate's awareness of economic issues, basic financial knowledge, and such. I know more about all the presidental candiates' opinions on the efficacy of prayer than I know about their opinion on, say, the extent that the federal government should regulate hedge funds. That's scary.

[grenadine]

I didn't mean to be so bold. Can't anyone turn that off?

[Foelhe]

@Rich: If a woman does get pregnant during consensual sex, she has the right to terminate the pregnancy. If abortion is outlawed, and a woman does get pregnant during consensual sex, she does not have the right to terminate the pregnancy. That is a choice, having to do with reproduction, and it would be restricted. Basic enough, yes?

I'm not even arguing the ethics of abortion. Factually, you are wrong.

[Bugmaster]

@Rich:
"Don't have sex" is a nice principle in theory, but then, so is Communism, and it doesn't work, either. Sex is a basic need for all humans. Suppressing it forever is simply not a realistic requirement to make, of anyone.

[malpollyon]

"Here is a very simple procedure for any woman to follow if she does not want to have kids: Don't have sex."
You could at least try and pretend your entire opposition to abortion isn't about punishing sluts Rich.
And if you truly were in favour of life saving abortions that would be ALL abortions, and abortion is TWELVE TIMES less likely to result in the death of the mother than a pregnancy carried to term. Since you're happy to commit "murder" by killing a fetus just to protect a raped woman from emotional damage I really can't see why you don't want to protect women from death, unless you think sluts don't deserve to live.

[Deoridhe]

When abortion is legal in any or all cases, women are free not to have children if they don't want to.

When abortion is illegal except in cases of rape, women are free not to have children if they don't want to.

Thus, outlawing abortion except in cases of rape in no way affects the reproductive rights of women. It does affect their rights to have sex.

Funny how men don't have children in this model.

[Rich]

Foelhe:
If a woman does get pregnant during consensual sex, she has the right to terminate the pregnancy. If abortion is outlawed, and a woman does get pregnant during consensual sex, she does not have the right to terminate the pregnancy. That is a choice, having to do with reproduction, and it would be restricted. Basic enough, yes?

It is a choice involving reproduction. Nonetheless, the woman's choice to reproduce or not is not restricted in either case. In the former case, she could have sex or not, and either way she would have the option of having a child. In the latter case, she might have sex and be forced to have a child, this would be a penalty for having sex (for women who did not want to have children at that point in time).

Regardless, the woman's reproductive freedom is in no way restricted. In both cases she is free to have children, assuming she is able to. In both cases she is free to not have children, if she does not want to.

Let me put it very simply: When a man, or a woman, decides to have consnsual sex, then all the choices involving reproduction have already been made. Both parties are agreeing to the possibility that reproduction might occur from the act of sex.

When it comes to reproduction rights, the abortion debate is nothing more than a five year old's attempt to say "Take back!!!". Abortion might be right for many reasons, but reproductive rights are not one of them, to assert them in the abortion debate is childish.

[Rich]

Bugmaster:
"Don't have sex" is a nice principle in theory, but then, so is Communism, and it doesn't work, either. Sex is a basic need for all humans. Suppressing it forever is simply not a realistic requirement to make, of anyone.

First, I would point out that I don't advocate a "Don't have sex" model, in fact I've pointed out in this thread that the Republican "anti-abortion" rhetoric is actually anti-sex rhetoric.

I responded about abortion because a claim was made that Republican candidates, as a whole, are in favor of state control of reproduction, which is a false statement, because abortion is not the same thing as state control of reproduction.

As for sex as a basic human need, that's also incorrect. Sex is an important thing for people, but it is not a basic human need by any stretch of the imagination. I would say that basic human needs include: Food, sleep, and air.

malpollyon:
You could at least try and pretend your entire opposition to abortion isn't about punishing sluts Rich.

What the heck? I thought I was talking about intelligent women who realize that sex can lead to pregnancy.

And what opposition to abortion are you talking about? Nowhere have I argued for outlawing abortion. I have expressed my views on abortion, but in the section you quoted I was merely pointing out that women (who are not raped) have complete control over their reproductive rights, regardless of whether or not abortion is legal.

Sir or Madam, please point out how abortion laws restrict the reproductive rights of women, or please admit that you are a troll.

Deoridhe:
Funny how men don't have children in this model.

Well, given that abortion was the topic I was only approaching it from the woman's point of view. In the current US model, men are forced to have children, and they are therefore responsible for at least half of that child's welfare. In other words, men are forced to have kids if they have sex, while women can choose to have kids or not, as they prefer.

I'm not saying that men have a raw deal in the status quo, but I can't see how anybody could say that men are well off.

[Foelhe]

"It is a choice involving reproduction. Nonetheless, the woman's choice to reproduce or not is not restricted in either case."

... Maybe we disagree on the definition of reproduce, since I consider the whole development of the kid part of the reproductive process. And, y'know, I kinda think most folks would agree with me there. If a woman wants to stop the reproductive system in the middle of the process, she has the CHOICE to do so. If she's not allowed to abort, you RESTRICT that CHOICE. Unless you're defining "reproduction" as naught but that second when sperm hits egg, your argument doesn't work. And I'm pretty sure most people think of reproduction in broader terms than that.

[not someone else]

Don't want kids? Use another orifice.

I'm half-kidding. Half.

I would say that basic human needs include: Food, sleep, and air.

You forgot water. And people tend to go a bit bugshit without some basic social stuff, but not being bugshit may or may not count as basic for your purposes.

[Jesurgislac]

I thought I was talking about intelligent women who realize that sex can lead to pregnancy.

So Rich is all about pregnancy being a punishnment, and all about punishing stupid sluts, and as all women who have sex for reasons other than getting pregnant are sluts, and all sluts are stupid, well: I think we're looking at a guy who hasn't got laid in a long time.

Okay, this comment is not directed towards anyone in particular, :tries to look innocent:, but the "you've made your bed, you've got to lie in it" argument regarding abortion always just ticks me off.

Believe it or not, an abortion is not performed at a day spa. You don't get cucumbers on your eyelids or a pedicure along with your pregnancy termination.

An abortion's not a whole lot of fun. The actual procedure isn't pleasant, and the aftermath is like a mini version of the stuff a woman's body goes through after childbirth (bleeding, cramping, hormonal disturbances).

On the whole, I preferred childbirth.

And even with that, and knowing ahead of time just how icky, not-fun, and just downright unpleasant it would be, I still would've had that abortion.

But it sure wasn't without consequences.

[Richard Hershberger]

I'm confused. I used to hear that women were using abortion as a form of birth control. This apparently was intended as an argument for making abortion illegal. Now I read that abortion and birth control are unrelated. Did the party line change without anybody notifying me?

[Jesurgislac]

Fred, why do you still refer to the folks who are pro-abortion and anti-women as "anti-abortion"? They support policies that actively encourage women to have abortions while at the same time demonizing women who have sex (see Rich) for any reason other than getting pregnant. They vote for polticians who actively support pro-abortion/anti-women legislation.

Their name for themselves is "pro-life", and while I find that ironic, I'm willing to accept that they can name themselves and expect others to use their name. But calling them "anti-abortion" is exactly as wrong as calling Bush supporters "anti-war".

[wintermute]

Well, given that abortion was the topic I was only approaching it from the woman's point of view. In the current US model, men are forced to have children, and they are therefore responsible for at least half of that child's welfare. In other words, men are forced to have kids if they have sex, while women can choose to have kids or not, as they prefer.

I'm not saying that men have a raw deal in the status quo, but I can't see how anybody could say that men are well off.

He's not the Messiah! He's a very naughty boy!

[Chuck]

Hey Rich, I've got a great idea: Let's forbid doctors for prescribing drugs for STDs, and ban all drugs that can only be used to treat STDs. (Except for rape victims, who can have them only within the first three months.) That's not restricting anyone's rights, right? Because if they didn't want to get gonorrhea, they shouldn't have had sex!

[Izzy]

I always do wonder, when this argument comes up, whether the people who argue that kids are the consequence of having sex and women who don't want them should remain abstinent would also be against treating STDs. "When a man, or a woman, decides to have consensual sex, then all the choices involving syphilis have already been made. Both parties are agreeing to the possibility that horrible diseases might occur from the act of sex."

I mean, antibiotics *do* kill living organisms too, if you're going to be Really Bothered By That.

[Izzy]

Well, Chuck, that was eerie.

[Chuck]

Izzy: Apparently, great minds think alike. Or post alike. Or something.

[Scott]

An evangelical is an evangelical is an evangelical. The 'conservative' ones move to the left on the environment; the liberal ones at the Christian Century argue for abortion restrictions (saying pro-life arguments are too 'libertarian' and spread too much distrust of govt). To be an evangelical, you must give up on voluntary conversion and seek the political power necessary to make others act the way the Baby Jeebus would have them act. Since you have a personal relationship w/ said Baby Jeebus, you know exactly how he wants others to act. Fred, has the Baby Jeebus told you the exact percentage he wants the estate tax to be yet?

The fun part will be when evangelical leaders start saying that the Baby Jeebus demands both abortion restrictions and Kyoto be signed (or some other environmental gesture be enacted). How will the left react? They've consistently maintained that the first (abortion restrictions) is forcing religious beliefs onto 'others'. How about the environmental beliefs? Human beings, however you feel about them, have been known to disagree w/ the left on the environment. Will evangelical calls for govt environmental action be forcing religious beliefs onto those 'others'?

No, because to a liberal, "others" is just a code word for "me, the Compassionate(tm) liberal". Abortion restrictions would be imposed on a liberal, hence imposed on 'others'. Environmental restrictions would not be imposed on the liberal, as he or she already wants them, and thus not imposed on 'others'. Others == the liberal, replacing "me" with "others" in nothing more than an attempt to rhetorically seize the moral high ground.

[cjmr's husband]

Baby Jeebus wants the Estate Tax to be 120%. Argument?

[Kenneth R. Morefield]

Kind of funny how the comments section here reinforces the point of the main post. Environmental issues may poll well, but we just can't wait to argue about abortion.

[wintermute]

Scott just can't wait to argue about how we're unreasonably keen on taking away his right to own slaves, and spend all his hard-earned money on roads and police and making sure that babies' teethers don't have lead in them...

[Tonio]

Two thoughts:

1. From what I've read, the "green" evangelical movement seems to include almost no fundamentalists or Bible literalists. Is there a key disagreement about doctrine that explains the divide among evangelicals, or does the divide have many causes? I suspect that even many fundamentalists reject the loopy PMD ideas about global warming that Fred covered in an earlier LB entry.

2. I reject the notion that abortion is simply about women needing to keep their legs crossed. Still, it's valid to ask why more people, both men and women, don't use birth control when they don't want to conceive. To my way of thinking, pro-lifers should be doing everything they can to prevent unwanted pregnancies, including handing out free condoms. But my impression of religious pro-lifers is that they care more about the "sinfulness" of non-procreative sex then about the issue of unwanted pregnances.

[cjmr's husband]

@Tonio,

The attitude is that all girls should be getting married early and having dozens of kids, as God intended. Any deviation from this should be punished.

[Jesurgislac]

Tonio: Still, it's valid to ask why more people, both men and women, don't use birth control when they don't want to conceive.

A lot of men say they don't use condoms because it makes sex less pleasurable for them: some men seem to feel that they don't have to wear condoms because it's the woman's responsibility to ensure she doesn't conceive. And of course, when condoms are improperly used, they are more likely to break - and it's rare for sex ed classes for teenagers to include even one demonstration of how to put on a condom correctly.

A lot of women (especially younger women) say that being prepared to have sex by having contraceptives to hand (or taking the pill regularly) means they will be considered sluttish (or will consider themselves sluts) since it means they're explicitly planning to have sex for their own enjoyment. There can also be problems with lack of access, lack of education, or lack of understanding (women who have been told that the pill or an IUD - both forms of contraception that can be used without anyone else's knowledge - are actually abortifacients, and who, believing this lie, avoid using them). In the US, getting hold of morning-after contraception is sometimes made intentionally difficult (in the UK, a chain of pharmacies called Lloyds has a "conscience clause" that permits a pharmacist to refuse to let a woman buy emergency contraception, though of course in the UK she can always just go to the nearest Casualty department). In the UK, a survey a few years ago established that the single best means of preventing teenage pregnancies was to have a Brook Advisory Centre in the locality, where teenagers can get contraception knowing there will be no questions asked.

It is a valid question, but by and large the answers are already known.

[Jesurgislac]

Izzy: I mean, antibiotics *do* kill living organisms too, if you're going to be Really Bothered By That.

You get the feeling that if Treponema Pallidum ever wanted to run for President, it'd be the perfect Republican candidate.

Then you look at Bush and realize that this has already happened.

[Tonio]

Cjmr's Husband, there are certainly many people who hold that horrid attitude. But surely there must be many others whose attitude is more general and not so targeted at women. The conservative Christian opposition to pornography and homosexuality seems to be rooted in opposition to non-procreative sex, and those often seem targeted at men. (I've long suspected that the Monty Python song "Every Sperm is Sacred" would fit well in a context lampooning Christian fundamentalists.)

[Jesurgislac]

seems to be rooted in opposition to non-procreative sex, and those often seem targeted at men.

Nope. They don't like lesbians, either. See the recent screaming from evangelical Christians about Mary Cheney having a baby while having non-procreative sex. (Lesbian mothers having children via AID, or same-sex couples of either gender adopting or fostering, bring out the very worst in Christians to whom homophobia is the fundamental tenet of their religion. This is not only evangelicals; Catholic church leaders have ordered that Catholic adoption agencies should be closed down rather than allow them to assess same-sex couples as adoptive parents.)

[damnedyankee]

You get the feeling that if Treponema Pallidum ever wanted to run for President, it'd be the perfect Republican candidate.

Then you look at Bush and realize that this has already happened.

Speaking for nobody but myself, Jesu wins the thread.

Though I hear that Reston ebolavirus is forming an exploratory committee for 2012...

[hapax]

Scott: "Human beings, however you feel about them, have been known to disagree w/ the left on the environment. Will evangelical calls for govt environmental action be forcing religious beliefs onto those 'others'?"

Y'know, I hate to admit it, but Scott actually raises a valid question here.

I would say the answer is "yes", if the calls for governmental environmental action had no other rationale than religious beliefs. (This is the fundamental basis of my, and most other people who oppose abortion, objections, and why our viewpoint should not be legislated, but brought about by such methods as Tonio and Jesu suggest).

However, things like clean air and water and preventing global climate change are fully justifiable without religion by Survival Rule One (which even libertarians acknowledge): Don't shit where you eat.

[Robb]

[carefully de-lurks & side steps procreation issues - Yeesh]

@ Tonio:the "green" evangelical movement seems to include almost no fundamentalists or Bible literalists

I don't know that it's theological or doctrinal at all - I think this is a factor of the American political spectrum, which as a way of simplifying & polarizing all issues into "left" & "right". I suspect it's as simple as "Them Godless Commie Democrats think the Environment is important - it must be evil!" They think it's bad, so We think it's good, or something like that. That kind of reactionary logic dominates American thinking in general, especially among Christians, and especially among Evangelical Fundies.

@ Scott - Dude, ESS EFF TEE EWE!

You're not even entertaining anymore : (

[McJulie]

Don't shit where you eat.

You'd think that even libertarians would acknowledge it, but they seem to be of the opinion that it's fine to defecate on Your Own Property, even if it runs into the stream that runs through other people's property, and that it is pure oppression if the government attempts to prevent this in any way, that the injured party should just sue the injuring party for damages and that makes everything all right. Even though trial lawyers are evil.

No, it really doesn't make any sense.

From what I've read, the "green" evangelical movement seems to include almost no fundamentalists or Bible literalists. Is there a key disagreement about doctrine that explains the divide among evangelicals, or does the divide have many causes?

I think it's pure tribalism, myself. Most ideas that evangelicals hold dear don't come from the Bible except very obliquely, they are mostly about a cultural tradition, a tradition of thinking of yourself as a certain kind of person.

The part that gets confusing is that the kind of person they want to think they are, is the kind of person who "goes to church" and is "Bible-believing." So they will claim those qualities, even if they don't actually go to church very often, or don't actually know what's really in the Bible.

So, they are not environmentalists because environmentalist are dirty commie liberal hippies who eat wheat bread and drive Volkswagons. Then they make up some weird Biblical justifications for that viewpoint.

[damnedyankee]

Human beings have also been known to hold beliefs at odds with the actual reality around them, Scott. At one time, the overwhelming view was that the Earth was flat.

The only people, in fact, who treat environmental change as an article of faith anymore are those invested in denial in order to maintain the status quo (Exxon, anti-science fundamentalists, Michael Crichton) against the growing mountain of proof.

[Tonio]

Great post, Jesurgislac. Most of your points were already on my mind when I wrote my original post, especially your point about lack of access, education, and understanding. My responses are below:

"A lot of men say they don't use condoms because it makes sex less pleasurable for them" - I say to those men, boo freakin' hoo.

"some men seem to feel that they don't have to wear condoms because it's the woman's responsibility to ensure she doesn't conceive." - What a selfish, piggish attitude.

"And of course, when condoms are improperly used, they are more likely to break - and it's rare for sex ed classes for teenagers to include even one demonstration of how to put on a condom correctly." - And of course, the opposition to non-procreative sex is a big reason that sex ed in schools is so incomplete.

"A lot of women (especially younger women) say that being prepared to have sex by having contraceptives to hand (or taking the pill regularly) means they will be considered sluttish (or will consider themselves sluts) since it means they're explicitly planning to have sex for their own enjoyment." - I suspect that attitude derives from the opposition I've been talking about, but I'm not sure how. In any case, I think it's hypocritical to have different standards for the genders on enjoying sex.

"In the US, getting hold of morning-after contraception is sometimes made intentionally difficult (in the UK, a chain of pharmacies called Lloyds has a 'conscience clause' that permits a pharmacist to refuse to let a woman buy emergency contraception...)" - Some US states legally allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense contraception. This is more outrageous to me than anything else. The pharmacist has no right to decide who should have sex.

[hagsrus]

The Muffin's take on environmentalism:

http://tinyurl.com/yv7r5f

[damnedyankee]

Thanks, hagsrus. Now I need to deliver a boot to the head and nobody suitable is within booting distance.

"People talking in movie shows,
People smoking in bed.
People voting Republican,
Give them a boot to the head!"

[cjmr]

I'll give you a boot, damnedyankee! Now I've got that song stuck in my head!

Maybe I should go listen to Charlotte Church sing...