Browse By

Michigan United Conservation Clubs Shuns Links from Liberal Website

For some time, we have featured a link to the Michigan United Conservation Clubs on our Michigan Progressive Resources web page, based on the conservation work of MUCC in the past. But this morning, we received an e-mail from MUCC Executive Director Erin McDonough:

From: Erin McDonough
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 9:42 AM
Subject: Please remove our name from your site

Dear Mam or Sir,

Please remove the Michigan United Conservation Clubs listing from your “Irregular States” web page. We did not authorize the link and would like to be taken off of your site.

Thank you,

Erin McDonough
Executive Director
Michigan United Conservation Clubs
2101 Wood Street
Lansing, MI 48912
emcdonough@[domain redacted]

Clearly, Ms. McDonough does not subscribe to the notion that all publicity is good publicity. McDonough concluded after being hired last year that MUCC was too “green” in its activities and had focused too much on environmental protection for Michigan. A shift has been made; this year, not one part of MUCC’s policy platform focuses on environmental protection for Michigan habitats. One or two planks in the MUCC platform actually call for the loosening of protections to halt the dangerous trend of too much conservation. With this transformation in priorities complete, Irregular Times (an acknowledged liberal and environmentalist website with some of those unsavory “green” tendencies) has become an inappropriate source of new members for the group. The Michigan United Conservation Clubs don’t want anyone who reads Irregular Times to become familiar with the group; they’d rather not have you as a reader or a member. You’re the wrong sort.

We’d like to assist the Michigan United Conservation Clubs in implementing their new media policy. Remember, everybody, you may only place links to the MUCC website after Erin McDonough authorizes them. Step one in this process, removal of links from Irregular Times to MUCC, is already complete. After all, such links are not authorized by MUCC. We link to our own copy of the MUCC 2010 platform in this post, since MUCC has not authorized us to link to any files hosted on their web site. Also, we’ve redacted the domain name of MUCC in the text of Erin McDonough’s e-mail, since the inclusion of such unauthorized information could used to reconstruct a de facto link, allowing unsavory sorts like you to read and find out more about MUCC. We can’t have that.

Step two in the process is just as important. Have you linked to the Michigan United Conservation Clubs on your own website in the past? Did you do so without prior authorization? Then please, for the sake of all that is good and decent in this world, take down your links! They are clearly not wanted. Wait for a letter of permission, preferably notarized with one of those nice raised seals, before you direct readers to the MUCC ever again. You’ll be doing the group a big, big favor. Thanks so much.

P.S. If you’re part of an activist group in Michigan that doesn’t think being “green” is a problem to overcome, let us know and we’d be happy to feature your group in our Michigan progressive directory. Why, you can even authorize us to talk about your group’s activities if it makes you feel better.

15 thoughts on “Michigan United Conservation Clubs Shuns Links from Liberal Website”

  1. Tom says:

    Wow on TWO fronts: a) Now the public, taking its cue from the big corporations, is selling-out the environment too! (“Hey, if they don’t give a shit, neither do i man.” At this point, are people beginning to see that the whole thing’s gonna collapse suddenly one day? “No, the earth can take care of itself, thank you very much, i gotta worry ’bout ME.”);

    and #2: i guess the whole “green” thing is now passe, no?

    How can rational people live in complete denial of reality? What is this, mass psychosis?

    Surely you realize, by now (and if not, soon enough), that this hole in the Gulf gushing crude, methane and other noxious, formerly sequestered carbon by-products, will be looked at as the Big One that took us down to less than a billion people on the entire planet, living brutal, wretched, HARD lives and dwindling with the cascading systemic collapses happening world-wide, not least of which is the food chain.

    1. Jim says:

      That’s a prediction, Tom: you just predicted that the Gulf oil spill will take the Earth’s population down from more than six billion people to less than a billion people. Finally in your dire predictions you’ve made a specific one. OK, let’s see how it goes.

    2. Hendrix says:

      How long until the first billion down?

      1. Truman says:

        Yes, the time frame in this scenario is important. is it 20 years until we’re 1 billion human beings, or 2 years?

  2. Tom says:

    i hope i’m wrong, but this will accelerate the bottleneck event that’s slowly beginning to take shape.

    1. Jim says:

      Let’s use this as a specific test of your gloomy perspective on the world. If it doesn’t come to pass, will you be willing to rethink your notion that it’s all going to hell and that it’s too late to do anything about it?

  3. Hendrix says:

    I don’t have time to read their whole platform, but thanks for removing this self-professed unworthy group from your progressive links list. I stopped reading at page 41. The first bit goes on for a while about how they are not satisfied with a minimum hunting age of 10 (recently lowered from 12). It mentions with no citation a study claiming that having a minimum hunting age increases injuries. It is kind enough to mention that the state government has explained that a likely reason from bringing such kids on hunts is for the adults to double their limit. It makes several requests for a wider variety of guns to be allowed during hunting seasons, apparently as a way to increase gun sales and recruit more hunters — as if the only thing keeping me from shooting something is that I can’t use the weapon of my choice (or use it as an excuse to own the weapon of my choice). Interestingly they mention the aspect of increased permissiveness increasing hunting license sales. I wonder if they know that those license sales enable the big government boogieman and are a tax on the rich who have the leisure time and land to hunt on. Anyway after making these various points which I can agree to disagree with, they get downright hypocritical. Pages 1-39 suggest that one of the reasons to promote deer hunting is to limit out of control deer populations. Then page 40 hits and they call for supplemental deer feeding to support deer populations.

    1. Hendrix says:

      If anyone’s paying attention, I’d like to correct myself to say MUCC is being contradictory and illogical rather than hypocritical.

      1. Jim says:

        Definitely paying attention. MUCC has shifted in its priorities over time; I’m glad, as you are, that this shift has been made apparent so that we can take the group off our Michigan links list.

  4. Tony Hansen says:

    Thank you for removing us from your list. You’re right — the loss of links from this fine and popular source of news was devastating. I believe we saw a .000000001 drop in traffic on a Sunday in January between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m.

    1. Jim Cook says:

      Good morning to you too, Mr. Hansen. The level of your commitment to welcome all conservationists regardless of their political affiliation shines through in your comment. I notice you put in a link to MUCC (which you co-lead) when you left that comment. Did your co-leader Erin McDonough authorize that?

      I won’t pretend that Irregular Times is a big-shot website. You’ve got it right when you point out that we’re pretty small potatoes. We don’t have corporate sponsorship (offering to put out positive marketing for companies in exchange for cash) like Michigan United Conservation Clubs does. Unlike MUCC, we don’t have sweetheart side deals with in which we encourage members to jump into more credit card debt, then get a cut from the credit card provider. We don’t have lobbyists like MUCC does. We’re just people who write, and you’re correct to point out that we aren’t as popular with well-connected people as your group.

      But you’re still bothered enough to come here, aren’t you, Mr. Hansen? Maybe it’s because this article discussing your group’s eagerness to censor and unwillingness to associate with the left half of the political spectrum appears on top page of search results.

      1. Anonymous says:

        It certainly does — if my top page, you mean page 36. But it’s just semantics right?

      2. Anonymous says:

        It certainly does — if by top page, you mean page 36. But it’s just semantics right? I actually found this as part of my duties to ensure that lies about MUCC aren’t being told. And, of course, I found several here.

        1. Hendrix says:

          First page Top 10 and probably rising thanks to the decision to authorize a link on this site. Why bother accusing someone of lying if you’re not going to refute any supposed lies?

        2. Jim says:

          Translation: you’re a paid PR person for the group. By contrast, I’ve got no financial interest in the group’s success or failure.

          Hendrix is correct. I encourage readers to click the link in my earlier comment, which demonstrates the continuing accuracy of that search result claim.

          As for you, “Anonymous,” why don’t you name yourself and get specific about the “lies” I’ve been telling. Support your claims with documentation and I’ll be exposed to the world. Fail to do so and readers will draw their own conclusions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!