🚀 go-pugleaf

Oh Goodness, it's "environmentalists like you that give
environmentalists like me a bad name.

When I was at the University of Colorado, there were a bunch
of wackos that boycotted Coors.  In fact, the grill at the 
university was explicitly directed not to serve Coors because
of its alledged crimes against humanity.

A bill came before the UCSU, University of Colorado Student Union
to reinstate Coors on campus.  Well, before I signed onto the bill, 
I looked into all the alledged abuses and didn't find a credible one.
The clincher came when the bill's backers brought in a videotape
of the 60 Minutes show investigating the right wing plot angle.  When some
Chicano Defense League lawyer accused Coors of racism,they said give us an
example.  The lawyer gave a guy's name who was supposed to have been fired
because of his race, and 60 Minutes found him and interviewed him.
Turns out he had drugs in his locker and he was fired.  The guy wasn't 
even mad at Coors.  He said he would have done the same thing if he 
were Coors.  He said it was a stupid thing to do because it was the 
best job he ever had.  UCSU reinstated Coors not because the Council
was taken over by Reagan youth, but because the allegations were 
utterly groundless.

But the question remains, why the anti-Coors bigotry?  (I use the
term bigot to describe one who holds a position unreasonably, 
exactly what's going on here.)  The answer is this: Coors has standards,
and standards work against the PC cause.  I support this assertion
with the following conversational snippet between Dinesh D'Souza and
Prof. Stanley Fish.  

D'Souza: This is a statement you made about the National Association
of Scholars, a group which in its public charter is committed to 
high standards and rational debate, which includes several university
presidents and professors evidently from across the spectrum.  You 
describe this group as "racist, sexist, and homophobic."

Fish: Right

D'Souza: Now you know as well as anyone else that those are three of the most
pungent epithets in the language.

Fish: That's why I used them.

D'Souza: - and that's why you used them.  Could you give us three concrete
examples of racism, sexism, and homophobia - be very specific - on the
part of the National Association of Scholars?

Fish: I don't have to respond to any request for three.  I can just respond
to the question of what I meant by saying that, which I hereby repeat.
What I did say, by the way, was that the organization is widely known to
be racist, sexist, and homophobic and I was alerting my colleagues as to the
nature of the organization they were bing asked to join.  What I meant by
that was in reference precisely to the high-sounding materials which declare,
"We are not against women; we are not against gays; we are not against 
minorities.  We just wish their works to enter by neutral, objective
standards."  And then when the question is asked, "Where do these neutral,
objective standards come from?" it turns out that they come from the 
very works and points of view being championed by the members of this 
organization.  So that although the assertion of no discrimination against
these groups is made, a mechanism and a way of thinking is put in place that 
has that effect.  So that on the general principle that if it walks like a 
duck, talks like a duck, and produces duck-like effects, it's a duck.
I say again, it's racist, sexist, and homophobic.

And that's the problem with Coors.  It holds to these standards.
What our boycotter cannot comprehend is that these standards make
Coors successful and an attractive employer.  People WANT to work 
there.  But these standards drive PC people nuts, and they will
do ANYTHING to subvert them.  The only thing is, after subverting
the standards and turning it into THEIR type of place, it is no
longer so attractive.  Look at Berkeley itself.  UCBerkeley's 
credentials were built in the 40s and 50s by its physics research.
Berkeley was a neat place.  But then came the political revolution
sans standards and the Berkeley of today was created.  Many riots,
poor education, revolutions du jour, tie-dye, and Harry Edwards.  
It's not a nice place.

What does any of this have to do with the environment?  Everything.
Today there exist two types of environmentalists.  Type 1 wants to 
destroy capitalism through environmentalism.  Type 2 wants only to 
ensure the environment's safety, and promoting standards is the way
to do this.  This point is make clear by Garrett Hardin in his
oft quoted but seldom read "Tragedy of the Commons" article.  
In it, Hardin argues persuasively that the only way to avert the
tragedy is through "mutual coercion mutually agreed upon".  Mutual 
coercion is another word for law, and law is another word for
standard.  So the only way to save the environments is through 
laws and standards, and what good are they if no one obeys them?
Being anti-standards is ultimately being anti-environment.

Another way to make the same point is through population.
Population growth drives environmental degredation, and its
growth can be studied through the Lotka-Volterra equations.
These equations reveal two types of survival strategies - r and K.
"r" represent high rate of growth strategies, and "K" strategies 
based on carrying capacities for low growth.  "r" strategists
have lots of babies and spend no time with them counting on their
growth rate to ensure survival.  "K" strategists have few offspring
and spend a great deal of time with them to ensure that they are
competitive.  Mice and Aspen represent "r" strategists.  Eagles and
Firs represent "K" strategists.  When disturbances occur, such as 
when a volcano clears an ocean island or when an avalanche takes 
out a stand of trees, the "r" strategists bounce back quickly.  
But after a few generations, the "K" strategists rebound and slowly
take over.

Exactly analagous situations occur in human society.  "K" societies
are highly principled and have low growth rates.  "r" societies are
unprincipled and have high growth rates.  To achieve zero percent
population growth and save the environment, "K" strategists need 
to be supported, and "r" strategists need to convert.  Type 1 PC
environmentalists who hate capitalism and success tend to support
"r" strategists; type 2 types who want to ensure survival tend
to support "K" strategists.  Mr. Berkeley Boycotter here appears
to be a type 1, which is ultimately a counterproductive posture.
The boycott is basically an attack on a "K" strategist by an "r".
Revolution creates situations in which PC "r" strategists thrive.
Critical Legal Studies, the PC legal division, explicitly argues
for a "destabilization right" to topple the successful.  I hope 
your effort to cobble together another Coors boycott fails, not 
because I'm a racist, sexist, or homophobe but because I'm an 
environmentalist.

  
	--Corey