1. Reblogged this on Stupidityflowering and commented:
    This is the most intelligent thing I’ve read in a long time. Makes me want to envision a Star Trek-esk future of small groups of interdependent communities working together in harmony… I can, at least, dream, can’t I?

  2. I’m actually surprised how non-viral the attack on dogs has been- I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone post this on Facebook. How come? Simple answer: the more common something is for the educated/socially liberal wing of the American middle class, the less likely it is to be stigmatized by environmentalists. Middle-class Americans like dogs, so they get less sustainability scrutiny.

    By contrast, anything perceived as “cheap” and/or “plastic” gets lots of environmentalist attacks. Similarly, Wal-Mart (which is more likely to be in poorer areas and serve poorer consumers) gets more attacks than more upscale big boxes.

  3. I guess I might be perpetuating the us vs. them frame that you are decrying, Scott… but this “dogs worse than SUVs” idea was debunked a while ago. See

  4. Well dang, LJ. Then I guess the only thing that makes me grumpier than selective factoid divisiveness is selective bogus-factoid divisiveness.

  5. I have to agree with your basic thesis that community is the basis of sustainability. I wrote about how community helped NYC after 9-11, not long, private driveways and security gates.


  1. […] I consider the social leg to be the most critical, as I’m unconvinced that we’ll ever be able to effectively handle the challenges of the other […]

  2. […] prospects or just push the problem off on someone else? Image credit: I’ve written before, pitting neighbor against neighbor, ideology against ideology, is no way to improve a community. […]

Join the Conversation


four × 4 =