"Articles like Kaufman’s are not merely dumb and sensational; they are carefully crafted not only to avoid the opportunity to educate one of the most consumptive nations on Earth, but, more importantly, to pathologize those who won’t spend."
Here, btw, is Sharon's response to the article.
Me? I'm working on it all. I have been bicycling a lot this fall, and as the weather has grown colder, I've added in more bus time as well. I've had the heat on exactly once so far, to bring the house up to 62 in the morning so the children can dress in something approximating comfort. I'd really like to have a bank of solar panels on my roof, so that I can run such luxuries as my downstairs freezer and dehumidifiers (though those need run only in summer). My needs are fairly simple, overall, and that's good, because my means are modest, too. And I, like Sharon, let my children play ball in the yard, while I work in the garden or hang out the wash or feed the rabbits. Reminds me a lot of when my brothers and I were little, actually - and we never felt deprived because of it.
Further from Peak Oil Blues - really, go read the whole thing -
This article is part of a new media genre that takes the serious worries of almost two-thirds of Americans, and creates a special brand of pathology designed to stigmatize, pathologize, trivialize, and marginalize their concerns.
What, are we a nation of ostriches now?
(cross-posted to http://gardengirl6.livejournal.com/)
1 comment:
I think her response article was much more rational than the NYT article (not my favorite publication, anyway). But NYT always does this; under the guise of presenting a "balanced" view--showing us the pros and cons of this lifestyle--they resort to sensationalism and marginalization. I wish her blog got the readership that NYT gets; she makes more sense than they do.
Post a Comment