Well, I guess I stand duly "flamed" (I knew it would happen sooner or later). However, I would like to say that my use of the term "Joe Sixpack" was not necessarily pejorative--that's the way what was for many years my local newspaper, the Gainesville (Fla) Sun, referred to the "average citizen" in its own editorials. I do not mean to engage in name-calling a la Rush Limbaugh--it takes a lot more words to say what you mean while trying not to offend anybody (which may be why my classes seem to be in the great majority very much against what they see as "trying to be 'politically correct'"), and I named poor old Joe as a shorthand way of trying to sketch the average dude who gets up and goes to work, comes home and relaxes with a beer in front of the tube, and really doesn't know or care very much about endangered species, as well as a lot of other things. Is this the same as calling someone a "feminazi"? I don't know--I would think there is a difference of intent, at least. However, I'm not sure that there isn't some room for the pejorative, either, and if I should apologize for "name-calling" (which I do), I don't think I should apologize for being critical of ignorance and short-sightedness. I believe there is a great deal of ignorance out there when it comes to understanding the impact human beings are having on ecosystems, and I lay much of the blame on those who are not so ignorant for sitting back after the environmental "victories" of the 1970s such as the ESA and *not* working hard to educate the rest of the populace about the larger issues, so that ecological awareness would be a characteristic of the citizenry at large and not just of a tiny "elite." Such education by and large did not happen, and that's why Joe Sixpack--excuse me, the many thousands of good solid taxpayers who are just doing what's expected of them to live what's supposed to be the good life in this industrialized society--are very likely to vote out the fragile protections that have been in place for a couple of decades. Yes, I do think a lot of ivory-tower types have dropped the ball, and I do think that a lot of the ensuing fight *will* be very ugly. Certainly there is no proposal in the message forwarded from David Orr that is not subscribed to in all seriousness by a substantial number of folks who are now very influential, including the proposal to "finish off" endangered species with bulldozers and guns--loggers, for instance, who have played tapes of spotted owl calls to lure owls out so that they can shoot them. I *do* think such attitudes are very ugly even as I sympathize with people who fear for their livelihoods and even as I shoulder some of the responsibility for not getting through to them the need for a changed understanding, if only for the sake of their own and their children's future. So, for that I will not apologize, flame me as you will. Ronnie (a "she," by the way)
