Talk:Environmental wacko

A few thoughts here: who is this "group of environmental wackos" which "rejects all forms of higher technology (electrical, mechanical, medicine, etc) and want the United States to abolish the automobile, stop using oil and gas, and revert to an agrarian society"? Who is calling this group a group of environmental wackos? Are you, the author of this entry, referring to them as such?

Is this group in fact distinct from a few of the religious groups present in the United States, or are they considered to be "environmental wackos" as well? Would you feel somewhat arrogant in calling them such, or is the attribution Rush Limbaugh's?

Why the adjective "radical"? Consider that what Rush Limbaugh would call "radical" is not the same as what Angela Davis or Noam Chomsky would see as "radical." Consider "extremely" in the same light....

Why would this group be a group of environmental wackos? Because they (whoever "they" may in fact be; I can't say I've encountered any of them yet, though I've been active politically for some time) wish not to use cars and so forth, or because they (again, ostensibly, as I'm not sure who you're talking about) wish to convince others not to use them? And if it's because of the latter, wouldn't the person calling them environmental wackos be, by extension, a "political wacko" for attempting to convince others of his or her own political view?

My point is that, if one starts down that road, one ends up calling everyone a wacko for one position or antoher. Labelling someone a wacko is unproductive and fails to address the substance of what that person says. In other words, it sounds suspiciously like emotional punditry.

Ultra-radical environmentalists would be a better term to describe Rush's 'environmental wacko' term. He is referring to people that want to force via government action or terrorist acts people to stop using cars, stop using air conditioners, etc.

If someone has access to Rush Limbaugh transcripts, it would be appreciated if excerpts could be provided, especially for the use of this term. I'm not very familiar with US radio moderators, but Limbaugh doesn't strike me as the kind of person who would use a term like "environmental wackos" in a fair manner as is claimed in the article, but I'm open to be convinced of the opposite, best with citations.

A question regarding the ELF: I'm not familiar with them, but is it proper to write "what many define as terrorism" instead of simply "terrorism"? Have they destroyed human life, or "only" property?

See also : Rush Limbaugh