Wise Use:
What Do We Believe?
THE 2001 WISE USE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE will be
held the second weekend in August 2001 at the Imperial Palace in Las Vegas,
Nevada. Speakers from many backgrounds will lay plans for future successes.
The general public is invited. For advance conference reservations, call
425-455-5038. Meet wise use leaders!
The following essay by Ron Arnold is regarded
by many as the seminal expression of the ideas that have evolved into the
richly diverse wise use movement.
Overcoming Ideology
by Ron Arnold
From A Wolf in the Garden : The Land Rights
Movement and the New Environmental Debate
Edited by Philip D. Brick and R. McGreggor Cawley, Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Inc., Lanham, Maryland, 1996 ISBN 0847681858
It was 1964, the year of the Wilderness Act. Historian
Leo Marx began his classic, The Machine in the Garden, with the
assertion that "The pastoral ideal has been used to define the meaning
of America ever since the age of discovery, and it has not yet lost its
hold upon the native imagination."1
A little more than thirty years after, we have
the present volume, A Wolf in the Garden, echoing Marx less than
tolling a sea-change in American notions of exactly what is meant by the
pastoral ideal.
Marx saw it as a cultivated rural "middle landscape,"
not urban, not wild, but embodying what Arthur O. Lovejoy calls "semi-primitivism";
it is located in a middle ground somewhere between the opposing forces
of civilization and nature.2
The pastoral ideal is not simply a location, but
also a psychic energy condenser: it stores the charge generated between
the polarities of civilization and nature. Ortega y Gasset recognized this
as long ago as 1930 in The Revolt of the Masses: "The world is a
civilized one, its inhabitant is not: he does not see the civilization
of the world around him, but he uses it as if it were a natural force.
The new man wants his motor-car, and enjoys it, but he believes that it
is the spontaneous fruit of an Edenic tree."3
There was a certain truth to this blind sight:
producers in the middle landscape invisibly yielded the raw materials for
the motor-car (and everything else). The labor power of dwellers in America's
middle landscape has always been reified as an Edenic tree to be plucked
by distant capital and unappreciative consumers, and the dwellers felt
it keenly.
Since 1964, the rise of environmentalist ideology
has pushed the pastoral ideal increasingly toward nature, striving to redefine
the meaning of America in fully primitivist terms of the wild. Eco-ideologists
have thrust their metaphoric raging Wolf into every rank and row of our
civilized Garden to rogue out both the domesticated and the domesticators.
The Wolf howls Wild Land, Wild Water, Wild Air. Whether Wild People might
have a proper place in Wolf World remains a subject of dispute among eco-ideologists.4
Public policy debate over the environment and
the meaning of America has been clamorous these thirty years. Its terms
were succinctly put by Edith Stein:
-
The environmental movement challenges the dominant
Western worldview and its three assumptions:
-
Unlimited economic growth is possible and beneficial.
-
Most serious problems can be solved by technology.
-
Environmental and social problems can be mitigated
by a market economy with some state intervention.
Since the 1970s we've heard increasingly about
the competing paradigm, wherein:
-
Growth must be limited.
-
Science and technology must be restrained.
-
Nature has finite resources and a delicate balance
that humans must observe.5
That fairly delineates the public debate. However,
in order to critique an ideology, one needs an accurate statement of that
ideology. The environmentalist ideology striving to redefine the meaning
of America was expounded most realistically by author Victor B. Scheffer
in a Northwest Environmental Journal article, "Environmentalism's Articles
of Faith." The five tenets Scheffer proposed appear to be the core of shared
beliefs actually held most widely by environmentalists:
1) All things are connected. "[N]ever will
we understand completely the spin-off effects of the environmental changes
that we create, nor will we measure our own, independent influence in their
creation." Scheffer adds, "I use the word nature for the world without
humans, a concept which--like the square root of minus one--is unreal,
but useful."
2) Earthly goods are limited. "As applied
to people, carrying capacity is the number of individuals that the earth
can support before a limit is reached beyond which the quality of life
must worsen and Homo, the human animal, becomes less human. One
reason we humans--unlike animals in the wild--are prone to exceed carrying
capacity is that our wants exceed our needs."
3) Nature's way is best. "Woven into the
fabric of environmentalism is the belief that natural methods and materials
should be favored over artificial and synthetic ones, when there's a clear
choice. Witness the vast areas of the globe poisoned or degraded by the
technological economy of our century."
4) The survival of humankind depends on natural
diversity. "Although species by the billions have vanished through
natural extinction or transformation, the present rate of extinction is
thought to be at least 400 times faster than at the beginning of the Industrial
Age. Humankind's destruction of habitats is overwhelmingly to blame."
Scheffer adds, "No one has the moral right, and
should not have the legal right, to overtax carrying capacity either by
reducing the productivity of the land or by bringing into the world more
than his or her 'share' of new lives. Who is to decide that share will
perhaps be the most difficult social question for future generations."
5) Environmentalism is radical "in the
sense of demanding fundamental change. It calls for changes in present
political systems, in the reach of the law, in the methods of agriculture
and industry, in the structure of capitalism (the profit system), in international
dealings, and in education."6
One can see the Wolf skulking in each of Scheffer's
five tenets of eco-ideology.
Actual organizations and individuals comprising
the environmental movement stress different clusters of these tenets. Although
the environmental movement's structure is complex and amply textured, three
distinctive axes of influence dominate environmental politics in America:
1. Establishment Interventionists - acting to
hamper property rights and markets sufficiently to centralize control of
many transactions for the benefit of environmentalists and their funders
in the foundation community, while leaving the market economy itself operational.
They tend to emphasize the need for natural diversity and in some cases
to own and manage wildlife preserves. Notable organizations in this sector
are the Nature Conservancy, National Wildlife Federation, National Audubon
Society.
2. Eco-Socialists - acting to dislodge the market
system with public ownership of all resources and production, commanded
by environmentalists in an ecological welfare state. They tend to emphasize
the limits of earthly goods. Greenpeace, Native Forest Council, Maine Audubon
Society are representative groups.
3. Deep Ecologists - acting to reduce or eliminate
industrial civilization and human population in varying degrees. They tend
to emphasize that nature's way is best and environmentalism is radical.
Earth First!, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, Native Forest Network
are in this category.7
The Wolf in these varieties of sheep's clothing
is rapacious, not simply protecting nature, but also annihilating the livelihoods
of dwellers in the middle landscape.
Today the Wolf is firmly entrenched in Washington,
D. C., where important environmental groups have established headquarters
or major operating bases. Eco-ideologists have written many laws, tested
them in the courts and pressured many administrative agencies into compliance
with their ideology. They have, in brief, become the Establishment. The
apparatus of environmentalism is no longer represented merely by non-profit
organizations, but has grown to encompass American government at all levels.
Since the inception of the Environmental Grantmakers
Association (EGA) in 1985, the foundation community has usurped substantial
control of the environmental movement. The standard philanthropic model,
"non-profit organization submits its proposal to foundation for funding,"
has given way to "a combine of foundations selects and dictates grant-driven
programs to non-profit organization." In the instance of the Ancient Forest
campaign in the Pacific Northwest, a cluster of six EGA foundations even
went so far as to create their own projects because of dissatisfaction
with the capabilities of the Washington, D.C. environmental community.
The foundations derive their income from managed investment portfolios
representing the power elite of corporate America.8
As the environmental debate developed during the
late 1980s, the "dominant Western worldview" gained an organized constituency
and advocacy leadership: the wise use movement. Incipient and gestating
more than a decade in the bosom of those who had been most wounded by environmental
ideology, the new movement congealed at a conference in Reno, Nevada in
1988. It was centered around a hodgepodge of property rights groups, anti-regulation
legal foundations, trade groups of large industries, motorized recreation
vehicle clubs, federal land users, farmers, ranchers, fishermen, trappers,
small forest holders, mineral prospectors and others who live and work
in the middle landscape.9
It came as a shock to environmentalists. The "competing
paradigm" unhappily found itself confronted with a competing paradigm.
The free ride was over. A substantial cluster of non-profit grass roots
organizations now advocated unlimited economic growth, technological progress
and a market economy. They opposed the eco-ideologists' proposals using
the tactics of social change movements, such as mobilizing grass roots
constituencies, staging media events including protest demonstrations and
orchestrating letter-writing campaigns to pressure Congress.
It was a pivotal shift in the debate. No longer
were eco-ideologists able to face off against business and industry, pitting
greedy for-profit corporations against environmentalism's non-profit moral
high ground. Now it was urban environmentalists defending their vision
of the pastoral ideal against those who actually lived the pastoral ideal
in the middle landscape.
This simple structural rearrangement of the debate
went virtually unnoticed, but was crucial: Now it was non-profit against
non-profit, one side promoting economic growth, technological progress
and a market economy, the other opposing.
The emergent wise use movement held up a mirror
to the embarrassing questions posed by the "competing paradigm": Just who
will limit our economic growth? Who will restrain America's science and
technology? Who will decide what "delicate balance humans must observe"?
The answer was clear: only environmental ideologists, and not those who
create economic growth, science, technology or the market economy.
Asserting such onerous control over others was
not attractive and clarified the environmental movement as just another
special interest protecting its selfish economic status. Economics is not
about money, it is about the allocation of scarce resources. The wise use
movement bared the environmental movement's ambition to be resource allocator
for the world.10
Environmentalism's efforts to turn America's pastoral
ideal wild stood out in sharp contrast to the wise use movement's actual
stewardship of the land, the water and the air. Wise users were not perfect,
to be sure, but they were down to earth, real, and necessary. They created
economic growth, employed science and technology, and drove the market
economy.
Environmentalism, by contrast, appeared in the
same light as pastoral literature in critic William Empson's Some Versions
of Pastoral: "about the people but not by or for them."11
Environmentalism, like pastoral literature, was
about those pastoral rural dwellers who produced dinner, dress and domicile
for everyone, but was generated by the educated elite, not by those who
lived the pastoral ideal. Environmentalism's ideology was promulgated for
the ruling elite, not for the farmer or rancher or family forest owner
or mineral prospector.
When the wise use movement arose to demystify
eco-fetishism, the environmental movement lost its grip on the debate.
It was as if history had played a huge joke on environmental ideology.
The environmental movement was not amused.
The first environmentalist reaction to the emergence
of the wise use movement was passive denial--ignore it and it will go away.
That lasted from 1988 to early 1992. The present phase of active denial
began with a study of the wise use movement by the W. Alton Jones Foundation
dated February, 1992, portraying the rising social force as a mere front
for industry, created by industry, paid for by industry, controlled by
industry. The fact that foundation analysts sincerely believed this assessment
points up how unprepared the environmental movement was to lose its favored
"non-profit versus for-profit" moral high ground in the debate. Industry
had
to be the opponent. The wise use movement had to be a mere front.
So that's what they saw.12
This humbuggery lasted only half a year. Further
research, sponsored by The Wilderness Society and conducted by the Boston-area
media strategy firm MacWilliams Cosgrove Snider, disclosed a disturbing
truth: "What we're finding is that wise use is really a local movement
driven by primarily local concerns and not national issues.... And, in
fact, the more we dig into it, having put together over a number of months
a fifty state fairly comprehensive survey of what's going on, we have come
to the conclusion that this is pretty much generally a grass roots movement,
which is a problem, because it means there's no silver bullet."
The words are those of Debra Callahan, then director
of W. Alton Jones Foundation's Environmental Grass Roots Program, at the
1992 Environmental Grantmakers Association annual fall retreat. Her session,
titled "The Wise Use Movement: Threats and Opportunities," capped off the
three day convocation of foundation executives.13
Callahan's source, the MacWilliams Cosgrove Snider
report, titled "The Wise Use Movement: Strategic Analysis and Fifty State
Review," affirmed that the wise use movement was the greatest threat the
environmental movement had ever faced.14
"What people fundamentally want, what people fundamentally
believe about environmental protection," Callahan said polls revealed,
"is that no, it's not just jobs. And no, it's not just environment. Why
can't we have both?
"The high ground is capturing that message, okay?
The wise use movement is trying to capture that message. What they're saying
out there is that 'We are the real environmentalists. We are the stewards
of the land. We're the farmers who have tilled that land and we know how
to manage this land because we've done it here for generations. We're the
miners and we're the ones who depend for our livelihood on this land. These
environmentalists, they're elitists. They live in glass towers in New York
City. They're not environmentalists. They're part of the problem. And they're
aligned with big government. And they're out of touch. So we're the real
environmentalists.'
"And if that's the message that the wise use movement
is able to capture, we are suddenly really unpopular. The minute the wise
use people capture that high ground, we almost have not got a winning message
left in our quiver."
Judy Donald of the Washington, D.C.-based Beldon
Fund, and Callahan's co-presenter, took the conclusion another step. "There
are, as Deb has made clear, ordinary people, grass roots organizations,
who obviously feel their needs are being addressed by this movement,; said
Donald. "We have to have a strategy that also is addressing those concerns.
And that cannot come simply from environmentalists. It can't come just
from us. That's the dilemma here. It's not simply that people don't get
it, it's that they do get it. They're losing their jobs."
Barbara Dudley, then executive of the Veatch Fund,
now head of Greenpeace, stated: "This is a class issue. There is no question
about it. It is true that the environmental movement is, has been, traditionally
... an upper class conservation, white movement. We have to face that fact.
It's true. They're not wrong that we are rich and they are up against us.
We are the enemy as long as we behave in that fashion."
These commanders of environmentalism had acknowledged
they were destroying jobs and hurting those who produce our material goods.
They admitted themselves the enemy. This moment of self-comprehension was
a tremendous opportunity to repent and reach out to wise users, dwellers
in the middle landscape who felt betrayed by big government and big business.
Instead, the foundations and their environmental
cohort deliberately fell back on their stereotype, portraying wise use
as a front for corporations, and risking a frontal assault against wise
use with new tactics: "Attack Wise Use.... Find divisions between Wise
Use and Wise Use and exploit them.... We need to ... talk about the Wise
Use agenda. We need to expose the links between Wise Use and other extremists...."
In other words, a smear campaign would be mounted
to tie wise users to unpopular extremists such as the John Birch Society,
the Unification Church, Lyndon LaRouche, and to violent factions such as
the militias. They knew they couldn't shoot the message, so they settled
for shooting the messenger.
To implement the smear campaign, W. Alton Jones
Foundation helped found the Clearinghouse on Environmental Advocacy and
Research (CLEAR) in 1993 with two grants totaling $145,000. In the same
year Jones gave numerous grants in the $20,000 to $30,000 range to small
local organizations that agreed to conduct smears against wise use.15
The Sierra Club engaged private investigator David
Helvarg to write an anti-wise use tirade titled The War Against the
Greens claiming a conspiracy of violence by wise users against environmentalists.
Helvarg's sponsors also funded a road show for him to tie wise use to an
alleged far-right terrorist network.16
The EGA foundations and their grant-driven environmentalist
dependents spent millions on related media saturation projects designed
to identify the words "wise use" with "violence" in the public mind. Reliance
on The Big Lie revealed grant-driven environmentalists as intellectually
and morally bankrupt, and the technique backfired, just as EGA members
Donald and Dudley foresaw.
Grass roots environmentalists saw that big-money
foundations controlled the "mainstream" environmental movement, which they
felt had sold out true reform for pallid incrementalism. They deserted
by the hundred thousand, preferring to form scattered local and regional
groups of their own. The Wilderness Society and Sierra Club were hit particularly
hard, losing 125,000 members and 130,000 members, respectively, in 1994.17
Most devastating for the foundations, an icon
of the Left, author and syndicated columnist Alexander Cockburn, aired
their dirty laundry in the progressive flagship, The Nation. "For
years now," wrote Cockburn in August 1995, "David Helvarg has been backed
by environmental groups such as the Sierra Club to investigate and smear
the Wise Use movement by any means necessary. This goes back to the early
1990s when the Environmental Grantmakers Association offered a de facto
bounty for material discrediting Wise Users as (a) a front for corporations
or (b) part of a far-right terrorist network."
Cockburn--an equal opportunity critic who routinely
berates the wise use movement for its failings--deplored the smear tactic.
He wrote, "And so we have the unlovely sight of Helvarg behaving like an
F.B.I. agent. He prowls across literature tables at Wise Use meetings and
ties all the names on the pamphlets, letterheads and books into his 'terror
network.' The trouble is, he never makes his case. Helvarg never comes
up with the terrorist conspiracy he proclaims, because there hasn't been
one."18
Indeed. What there has been, and what environmentalists
cannot confront, is a potent movement subversive of environmentalism's
articles of faith. That is why they resort to a hoax rather than lively
debate on the issues.
Although it would be rash to propose wise use's
articles of faith--it is a diverse movement--some of the following principles
would probably find wide agreement among those who provide the material
goods to all of humanity:
1) Humans, like all organisms, must use natural
resources to survive. This fundamental verity is never addressed by
environmental ideology. The simple fact that humans must get their food,
clothing and shelter from the environment is either ignored or obliquely
deplored in quasi-suicidal plaints such as, "I would rather see a blank
space where I am--at least I wouldn't be harming anything."
If environmentalism were to acknowledge our necessary
use of the earth, the ideology would lose its meaning. To grant legitimacy
to the human use of the environment would be to accept the unavoidable
environmental damage that is the price of our survival. Once that price
is acceptable, the moral framework of environmental ideology becomes irrelevant
and the issues become technical and economic.
2) The earth and its life are tough and resilient,
not fragile and delicate. Environmentalists tend to be catastrophists,
seeing any human use of the earth as damage and massive human use of the
earth as a catastrophe. An environmentalist motto is "We all live downstream,"
the viewpoint of hapless victims.
Wise users, on the other hand, tend to be cornucopians,
seeing themselves as stewarding and nurturing the bountiful earth as it
stewards and nurtures them. A wise use motto is "We all live upstream,"
the viewpoint of responsible individuals.
The difference in sense of life is striking. Environmentalism
by its very nature promotes feelings of guilt for existing, which naturally
degenerate into pessimism, self-loathing and depression.
Wise use by its very nature promotes feelings
of competence to live in the world, generating curiosity, learning, and
optimism toward improving the earth for the massive use of future generations.
The glory of the "dominant Western worldview"
so scorned by environmental ideologists is its metaphor of progress: the
starburst, an insatiable and interminable outreach after a perpetually
flying goal. Environmentalists call humanity a cancer on the earth; wise
users call us a joy.
If there is a single, tight expression of the
wise use sense of life, it has to be the final stanza of Shelley's Prometheus
Unbound. I think wise users will recognize themselves in these lines:
To suffer woes which Hope thinks infinite;
To forgive wrongs darker than death or night;
To defy Power, which seem omnipotent;
To love, and bear; to hope till Hope itself creates
From its own wreck the thing it contemplates;
Neither to change, nor falter, nor repent;
This, like thy glory, Titan! is to be
Good, great and joyous, beautiful and free;
This is alone Life, Joy, Empire, and Victory!19
3) We only learn about the world through trial
and error. The universe did not come with a set of instructions, nor
did our minds. We cannot see the future. Thus, the only way we humans can
learn about our surroundings is through trial and error. Even the most
sophisticated science is systematized trial and error. Environmental ideology
fetishizes nature to the point that we cannot permit ourselves errors with
the environment, ending in no trials and no learning.
There will always be abusers who do not learn.
People of good will tend to deal with abuse by education, incentive, clear
rules and administering appropriate penalties for incorrigibles.
4) Our limitless imaginations can break through
natural limits to make earthly goods and carrying capacity virtually infinite.
Just as settled agriculture increased earthly goods and carrying capacity
vastly beyond hunting and gathering, so our imaginations can find ways
to increase total productivity by superseding one level of technology after
another. Taught by the lessons learned from systematic trial and error,
we can close the loops in our productive systems and find innumerable ways
to do more with less.
5) Man's reworking of the earth is revolutionary,
problematic and ultimately benevolent. Of the tenets of wise use, this
is the most oracular. Humanity is itself revolutionary and problematic.
Danger is our symbiote. Yet even the timid are part of the human adventure,
which has barely begun.
Humanity may ultimately prove to be a force of
nature forwarding some cosmic teleology of which we are yet unaware. Or
not. Humanity may be the universe awakening and becoming conscious of itself.
Or not. Our reworking of the earth may be of the utmost evolutionary benevolence
and importance. Or not. We don't know. The only way to see the future is
to be there.
As the environmental debate advances to maturity,
the environmental movement must accept and incorporate many of these wise
use precepts if it is to survive as a social and political force.
Establishment Interventionism, as represented
by the large foundationand their grant-driven client organizations, must
find practical ways to accommodate private property rights and entrepreneurial
economic growth.
Eco-socialism's collectivist program must find
practical ways to accommodate individual economic liberties in its bureaucratic
command-and-control approach.
Deep Ecology's biocentrism must find practical
ways to accommodate anthropocentrism and technological progress.
To accomplish this necessary reform, environmentalists
of all persuasions will have to face their ideological blind spots and
see their own belief systems as wise users see them, i.e., in a critical
and practical light.
This is a most difficult change for ideological
environmentalists. Failure to reform environmentalism from within will
invite regulation from without or doom the movement to irrelevancy as the
wise use movement lives the pastoral ideal in the middle landscape, defining
the meaning of America.
1. Leo Marx, The Machine in the Garden: Technology and the Pastoral
Ideal in America, Oxford University Press, New York, 1964, p. 3.
2. Arthur O. Lovejoy, et al., A Documentary History of Primitivism
and Related Ideas, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1935, p. 369.
3. José Ortega y Gasset, The Revolt of the Masses, trans.
anon., (first published in Spanish, 1930), reissued 1993 by W. W. Norton
& Company, Inc., New York, p. 82.
4. Bill Devall and George Sessions, eds., Deep Ecology: Living as if
Nature Mattered, Peregrine Smith Books, Salt Lake City, 1985, passim.
5. Edith C. Stein, The Environmental Sourcebook, Lyons & Burford,
New York, 1992, p. 6. Victor B. Scheffer, "Environmentalism's Articles
of Faith," Northwest Environmental Journal, Vol. 5:1, Spring/Summer
1989, pp. 99-108.
7. Ron Arnold and Alan Gottlieb, Trashing the Economy: How Runaway Environmentalism
is Wrecking America, Free Enterprise Press, Bellevue, Washington, 2nd
ed., 1994, pp. 57-67 et passim.
8. Taped sessions of the Environmental Grantmakers Association 1992 Annual
Fall Retreat, Conference Recording Service, Berkeley, California, 1992.
Session 2: "North American Forests: Coping With Multiple Use and Abuse;"
Session 19: "Environmental Legislation: Opportunity for Impact and Change;"
Session 23: "Media Strategies for Environmental Protection."
9. Alan M. Gottlieb, ed., The Wise Use Agenda, Free Enterprise Press,
Bellevue, Washington, 1989. This document was the result of the 1988 Wise
Use Strategy Conference and consists of recommendations for natural resource
use from 125 of the 250 conference participants.
10. Michael Kelley, "The Road to Paranoia," The New Yorker, Vol.
LXXI, No. 17, June 19, 1995, p. 60. 11. William Empson, Some Versions
of Pastoral, New Directions, New York, 1974, p. 6 et passim.
12. W. Alton Jones Foundation, The Wise Use Movement, Charlottesville,
Virginia, 1992. 13. Taped session of the Environmental Grantmakers Association
1992 Annual Fall Retreat, Conference Recording Service, Berkeley, California,
1992. Session 26: "The Wise Use Movement: Threats and Opportunities."
14. The Wilderness Society, The Wise Use Movement: Strategic Analysis
and Fifty State Review, prepared by MacWilliams Cosgrove Snider, Boston,
1992. Distributed by Clearinghouse on Environmental Advocacy and Research,
Washington, D.C.
15. W. Alton Jones Foundation, Form 990 Annual Report to the Internal Revenue
Service, 1993, Page 10, Part XV, Line 3a, Grants and Contributions Paid
this Year. Anti-wise use grant recipients included Environmental Defense
Fund ($75,000); Idaho Conservation League ($30,000); Kentucky Coalition
($30,000); Maine Audubon Society ($26,250); Missouri Coalition for the
Environment Foundation ($20,000); Pennsylvania Environmental Council ($30,000);
Piedmont Environmental Council ($25,000); Society for the Protection of
New Hampshire Forests ($26,250); Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance ($30,000);
Vermont Natural Resources Council ($26,250); Western States Center ($20,000);
16. David Helvarg, The War Against the Greens: The "Wise Use" Movement,
the New Right, and Anti-Environmental Violence, Sierra Club Books,
San Francisco, 1994.
17. Keith Schneider, "Big Environment Hits the Recession," New York
Times, January 1, 1995, p. F4. See also, Stephen Greene, "Environmental
Groups Advised to Slim Down," Chronicle of Philanthropy, January
12, 1995, p. 29.
18. Alexander Cockburn, "Exchange," The Nation, Vol. 261, No. 5,
August 14 / 21, 1995, p. 150.
19. Percy Bysshe Shelley, "Prometheus Unbound" in The Works of Percy
Bysshe Shelly (Roslyn, N.Y.: Black's Reader Service, 1951), 180.
We invite your comments on these ideas.
Return to
Go to the Wise Use Bookstore
You may also e-mail us on CompuServe at 74123,3036
or on America Online at CDFE