By The Tribune-Review
Published: Friday, June 21, 2013, 8:57 p.m.
I had an epiphany on a recent trip in Butler County, where, on a nicely kept lawn in front of a modest, well-kept house, was a small flock of chickens.
As I drove on, I got to musing over the kind of person who owned those chickens. Was he a Republican or a Democrat, a liberal or a conservative?
Those chickens could have been raised by a tree-hugging, environmentalist wing nut who bleeds green and is seeking to save the world from the overuse of pesticides, artificial fertilizer, industrial farming and the cruelty of the poultry industry.
On the other hand, they could have been being raised by a Fox News-loving, Obama-hating, LaPierre-worshipping, conservative wing nut who has a basement full of guns and wants to be self-sustaining.
The epiphany is this: If you can take those two groups of folks, the wing-nut liberal chicken farmers and the wing-nut conservative chicken farmers, who, by all accounts, have nothing in common, I bet they could have a pretty good dinner conversation about every aspect of chickens and the merits of chicken manure as a good nitrogen source for gardening.
If that can happen with chickens, maybe it can happen with the real problems we are faced with in this country and in this state.
If we could all, politicians and average Joes, look at each other simply as fellow citizens and put away our labels and agendas, we may be able to start each encounter on common ground and end up having a pretty good dinner conversation ourselves.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Saved her life
- Lebo’s coyotes
- Fix icy hazard on Rt. 66
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Weakness shows
- Wildlife & humans
- Quit drilling in state forests
- Not reviled abroad
- We pay to keep poor warm
- Conspicuous by absence
- Needs sign added