PDA

View Full Version : Bush Gang Itching to Loot National Parks



Tim Seaver
08-29-2005, 22:18
Destroying the National Parks

The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/29/opinion/29mon1.html) | Editorial

Monday 29 August 2005

Most of us think of America's national parks as everlasting places, parts of the bedrock of how we know our own country. But they are shaped and protected by an underlying body of legislation, which is distilled into a basic policy document that governs their operation. Over time, that document has slowly evolved, but it has always stayed true to the fundamental principle of leaving the parks unimpaired for future generations. That has meant, in part, sacrificing some of the ways we might use the parks today in order to protect them for tomorrow.

Recently, a secret draft revision of the national park system's basic management policy document has been circulating within the Interior Department. It was prepared, without consultation within the National Park Service, by Paul Hoffman, a deputy assistant secretary at Interior who once ran the Chamber of Commerce in Cody, WY, was a Congressional aide to Dick Cheney and has no park service experience.

Within national park circles, this rewrite of park rules has been met with profound dismay, for it essentially undermines the protected status of the national parks. The document makes it perfectly clear that this rewrite was not prompted by a compelling change in the park system's circumstances. It was prompted by a change in political circumstances - the opportunity to craft a vision of the national parks that suits the Bush administration.

Some of Mr. Hoffman's changes are trivial, although even apparently subtle changes in wording - from "protect" to "conserve," for instance - soften the standard used to judge the environmental effects of park policy.

But there is nothing subtle about the main thrust of this rewrite. It is a frontal attack on the idea of "impairment." According to the act that established the national parks, preventing impairment of park resources - including the landscape, wildlife and such intangibles as the soundscape of Yellowstone, for instance - is the "fundamental purpose." In Mr. Hoffman's world, it is now merely one of the purposes.

Mr. Hoffman's rewrite would open up nearly every park in the nation to off-road vehicles, snowmobiles and Jet Skis. According to his revision, the use of such vehicles would become one of the parks' purposes. To accommodate such activities, he redefines impairment to mean an irreversible impact. To prove that an activity is impairing the parks, under Mr. Hoffman's rules, you would have to prove that it is doing so irreversibly - a very high standard of proof. This would have a genuinely erosive effect on the standards used to protect the national parks.

The pattern prevails throughout this 194-page document - easing the rules that limit how visitors use the parks and toughening the standard of proof needed to block those uses. Behind this pattern, too, there is a fundamental shift in how the parks are regarded. If the laws establishing the national park system were fundamentally forward-looking - if their mission, first and foremost, was protecting the parks for the future - Mr. Hoffman's revisions place a new, unwelcome and unnecessary emphasis on the present, on what he calls "opportunities for visitors to use and enjoy their parks."

There is no question that we go to national parks to use and enjoy them. But part of the enjoyment of being in a place like Yosemite or the Grand Canyon is knowing that no matter how much it changes in the natural processes of time, it will continue to exist substantially unchanged.

There are other issues too. Mr. Hoffman would explicitly allow the sale of religious merchandise, and he removes from the policy document any reference to evolution or evolutionary processes. He does everything possible to strip away a scientific basis for park management. His rules would essentially require park superintendents to subordinate the management of their parks to local and state agendas. He also envisions a much wider range of commercial activity within the parks.

In short, this is not a policy for protecting the parks. It is a policy for destroying them.

The Interior Department has already begun to distance itself from this rewrite, which it kept hidden from park service employees. But what Mr. Hoffman has given us is a road map of what could happen to the parks if Mr. Bush's political appointees are allowed to have their way.

It is clear by now that Mr. Bush has no real intention of living up to his campaign promise to fully finance the national parks. This document offers a vivid picture of the divide between the National Park Service, whose career employees remain committed to the fundamental purpose of leaving the parks unimpaired, and an Interior Department whose political appointees seem willing to alter them beyond recognition, partly in the service of commercial objectives.

Suddenly, many things - like the administration's efforts to force snowmobiles back into Yellowstone - seem very easy to explain

Skyline
08-29-2005, 22:57
What else would you expect from Shrub and Cheney?

Tha Wookie
08-30-2005, 02:10
I want to hear what the people on this site who voted for Bush think about this.

I warned this pre-election, and all I got was grief about what a "strong leader" he is.

So, are you accountable?

Blue Jay
08-30-2005, 07:09
I want to hear what the people on this site who voted for Bush think about this.

I don't, there is too much BS in the world already.

BlackCloud
08-30-2005, 07:12
I want to hear what the people on this site who voted for Bush think about this.

I warned this pre-election, and all I got was grief about what a "strong leader" he is.

So, are you accountable?
I'll wait for a more reliable source then the NY Times....:cool:

Skeemer
08-30-2005, 07:20
I guess I'm one of a few who really has trouble identifying solidly with either party. I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.

On the liberal side, I want the government to step in and protect our natural resources and enforce environmental laws, especally from big business. I don't want the government in my personal life so I side with the dems on many civil liberity issues such as a women's right to choose and the seperation of church and state.

On the other hand I'm not one of those who believe in "entitlements." I see lawyers and unions (the dems biggest supporters) as having destroyed ethics in this country. As much as I dislike Bush, I dislike Kerry and Edwards even more.

I'm not sure how Kerry would have handled Iraq, (or anything for that matter) but I just can't accept our young people being killed over there...and why haven't we found the person responsible for 911?

Yes, it bothers me to have voted for Bush. If given a choice like that again I may not vote.

PROFILE
08-30-2005, 07:56
I alway take anything written as an opinion with a grain of salt. I also find it intresting that this guy has a copy of a "secrect" document. Or is it used to make this appear more devious. Also why was this written. Hoffman may have been, and probably was, one of many who wrote revisions of the Park's purpose. Shouldn't they look at things from different points of view, or should it be closed minded and only look at it from a single side. It does not mean it will be implemented.
I would keep an eye on those guys up there in D.C. but also keep an eye on news paper opion pieces with an agenda.

Rain Man
08-30-2005, 08:29
... I see lawyers and unions (the dems biggest supporters) as having destroyed ethics in this country....

What I see--> you've bought into the Republican, Chamber of Commerce, and insurance industry rhertoric and lies, lock, stock, and barrel.

Unions and "trial lawyers" (see "Erin Brockovich") stand for the little guys against those who exalt the "love of money" (see I Timothy) above all else. I see what Christ Jesus preached.

That's good ethics in my book. I see standing for the rich and powerful and corrupt and secret agendas as what destroys ethics.

We don't see things the same way. That's what makes the world go round.

Rain:sunMan

.

Rain Man
08-30-2005, 08:38
... keep an eye on news paper opion pieces with an agenda.

And the Bush cabal doesn't have agendas that put any newspaper's agenda to shame?

Would you rather have the White House or the newspaper industry in charge of the information Americans get to read?

Rain:sunMan

.

Sly
08-30-2005, 09:17
I'll wait for a more reliable source then the NY Times....:cool:

How about MSNBC?

MSNBC
Updated: 4:01 p.m. ET Aug. 26, 2005

An association of retired National Park Service employees on Friday accused Bush administration political appointees of hijacking America’s national parks, saying a leaked Interior Department document shows a move to stress recreation and resource development over park preservation.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9087265/

Lone Wolf
08-30-2005, 09:20
Start the drilling! We need more of that black gold.

Sly
08-30-2005, 09:30
Start the drilling! We need more of that black gold.

Incorrigible. ;)

Yeah, we can have ATV tours of the oil rigs in Halliburton/Yellowstone Commercial National Park!

Screw the griz, elk and buffalo!

dougmeredith
08-30-2005, 09:31
I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.

On the liberal side, I want the government to step in and protect our natural resources and enforce environmental laws, especally from big business.
No fiscal conservative would ever use the silly union-created term "big business."



I don't want the government in my personal life so I side with the dems on many civil liberity issues such as a women's right to choose and the seperation of church and state.

I'm with you here.


I see lawyers and unions (the dems biggest supporters) as having destroyed ethics in this country.
And here. Maybe not single-handedly, but they sure don't help.


I'm not sure how Kerry would have handled Iraq
Hell, I'm not even sure how I would have handled it. Some questions just don't have good answers.

Doug

ps. I just love these hiking discussions.

Lone Wolf
08-30-2005, 09:34
Whack and stack the elk and buffalo. What a barbecue! :D

Sly
08-30-2005, 09:36
You have something against bear meat? I hear it's delicious.

digger51
08-30-2005, 09:39
Didnt we just have this story on another thread a few days ago? Geez, some people just break out the koolaid cups at every opportunity.

Lone Wolf
08-30-2005, 09:40
Not fond of bear meat. Although I've only eaten black bear. Griz may be good.

MOWGLI
08-30-2005, 09:41
I guess I'm one of a few who really has trouble identifying solidly with either party. I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.

On the liberal side, I want the government to step in and protect our natural resources and enforce environmental laws, especally from big business. I don't want the government in my personal life so I side with the dems on many civil liberity issues such as a women's right to choose and the seperation of church and state.

On the other hand I'm not one of those who believe in "entitlements." I see lawyers and unions (the dems biggest supporters) as having destroyed ethics in this country. As much as I dislike Bush, I dislike Kerry and Edwards even more.

I'm not sure how Kerry would have handled Iraq, (or anything for that matter) but I just can't accept our young people being killed over there...and why haven't we found the person responsible for 911?

Yes, it bothers me to have voted for Bush. If given a choice like that again I may not vote.

Skeemer, stop the distraction and put the blame squarely where it belongs - on the French. :D

Sly
08-30-2005, 09:45
Didnt we just have this story on another thread a few days ago? Geez, some people just break out the koolaid cups at every opportunity.

Koolaid, the drink of choice for BushCo apologist since 2001.

Tha Wookie
08-30-2005, 10:17
Start the drilling! We need more of that black gold.
Sure, wolf, bend over!

Tim Seaver
08-30-2005, 10:17
The coalition cited these examples of what the rules would bring:




The use of snowmobiles would be radically expanded at Yellowstone and other national parks, allowing them to travel over any paved road in winter.
Grazing and mining would be elevated to "park purposes," thus ensuring their continuation.
The use of jet skis, ORVs, dirt bikes and other mechanized vehicles would be permitted on a virtually unrestricted basis.
Tourist flights would increase, impacting the natural peace and quiet at parks.
Rangers would be forced to kill bears at parks like Yellowstone if they damaged private property.
Pretty mind boggling.
More information at www.npsretirees.org/ (http://www.npsretirees.org/)

Skeemer
08-30-2005, 10:18
Rain Man replied to my earlier post:
What I see--> you've bought into the Republican, Chamber of Commerce, and insurance industry rhertoric and lies, lock, stock, and barrel.

No, it is more what I've personally observed...in many cases first hand. Ford (UAW) is closing its Lorain Assembly plant at the end of the year...where they once built the T-bird and vans and provided thousands of jobs and much of the area's economy.

My former employer, Delphi (UAW) in Sandusky OH is on the verge of bankruptcy.

Honda (non-union) is celebrating its 25th anniversary in Ohio where it has created over 16,000 jobs.

I can tell give you numerous examples of the union protecting the poor worker. BTW, they get a cost of living allowance quarterly so they're not too worried about rising gas prices.

On the lawyer side, I backed into a person in a parking lot doing no damage to my vehicle (no lie) and smashing his headlight. He immediately hires a lawyer who sends him to a doctor and starts a lawsuit..claiming serious injury.

A person in Sandusky drove around the down gates at a two track railroad crossing...another train (blocked by one sitting there) was coming and smashed into the car killing the occupant. They sued the RR and won a big lawsuit...even though the guy was breaking the law. I'm not making this up.

Lawyers here are on TV here everyday pleading with you to bring them your injuries...they make it sound like by doing so you've hit the lottery.

And who can forget the old lady who spilled hot coffee on herself and won the lawsuit.

I realize that there are many details involved in the above, but I haven't bought into anything "lock stock and barrel." I think it is you who have been bambuzzled, but like you said we can't all agree. I do believe Bush is a disgrace when it comes to the environment and our parks.

I just got through hiking the Colorado Trail which tries to be everything to everybody. The cattle ranchers have contaminated the trail and water sources most of the way. I am glad I hiked it...made me appreciate the AT being a "footpath only." If the changes implied in this thread take effect, I fear we will all be sorry.

Sly
08-30-2005, 10:45
I just got through hiking the Colorado Trail which tries to be everything to everybody. The cattle ranchers have contaminated the trail and water sources most of the way.

**** like this really pizzes me off too. You'd think that they'd at least be made to protect and fence off the source as they do in a few other areas.

Nothing worse than stepping over cow**** to get your water.

Lone Wolf
08-30-2005, 10:45
Seems wookie is gay. He's wantin me to bend over.

Tha Wookie
08-30-2005, 10:52
Seems wookie is gay. He's wantin me to bend over.
No, but Bush would be more than obliged.

You asked for it.

Skyline
08-30-2005, 11:15
I want to hear what the people on this site who voted for Bush think about this.

I warned this pre-election, and all I got was grief about what a "strong leader" he is.

So, are you accountable?


Lotsa luck getting anyone who voted for Shrub to SERIOUSLY defend this attempt to destroy our national parks. They will do what conservatives always do--change the subject, deflect criticism, demonize their opponents.

How many neo-cons raised their hands in the early '80s in support of the hideous policies of Reagan and James Watt re: the National Park Service? No--when questioned, they talked all around it, pointed fingers about totally unrelated topics, you get the picture.

"NASCAR Dads," a key Shrub constituency, gets its jollies playing with toys that make loud noises, waste energy, and spew pollution. The companies that make those toys are big GOP contributors. How could we expect any other position by this Administration?

dougmeredith
08-30-2005, 11:48
They will do what conservatives always do--change the subject, deflect criticism, demonize their opponents.
Don't you just hate that? Better to do what liberals do: steal money from people and give it to some lazy jerk who doesn't want to work.

Doug

Sly
08-30-2005, 11:51
Lotsa luck getting anyone who voted for Shrub to SERIOUSLY defend this attempt to destroy our national parks. They will do what conservatives always do--change the subject, deflect criticism, demonize their opponents.

Why shouldn't some fat slob, with more money than brains, get to tear up the trail with his ATV in order to get to the backcountry.

You wanna go fishing, or chill in the water? Not in our pristine lake, we got some jet-skiing to do.

Buffalo! We run over buffalo for breakfast, says the snowmobiler.

Just think of the resupply opportunities? Which Bushie on WB will be the 1st to thru-ride the AT?

Skyline
08-30-2005, 11:57
Don't you just hate that? Better to do what liberals do: steal money from people and give it to some lazy jerk who doesn't want to work.

Doug

Exactly. Subject changed. Criticism deflected. Didn't even take an hour.

Now, can you speak to the evidence that the Shrubbies have detailed plans on the front burner to destroy the places we all purportedly love? And if you happened to have voted for Bush/Cheney, how does it make you feel?

Skyline
08-30-2005, 12:14
Lest anyone try to claim this is a fabrication of the New York Times editorial board:

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050826141009990006&cid=1291

http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0826-08.htm

http://www.wilderness.org/NewsRoom/Statement/20050826.cfm

http://insidebayarea.com/news/ci_2975430

http://64.224.202.104/psapp/view_art.asp?PEB_ART_ID=410

Tha Wookie
08-30-2005, 12:38
Lotsa luck getting anyone who voted for Shrub to SERIOUSLY defend this attempt to destroy our national parks. They will do what conservatives always do--change the subject, deflect criticism, demonize their opponents.


I would be careful about blanketing all Bush voters in the same conservative stupor. All kinds of folks were fooled into voting for the Bush Puppet -not just your average-six-tabloid-a-day conservative pawn.

Nor would I want anyone blanketing me under the liberal label, which fails pitifully to define me. Both of those labels are from the same master: divide and conquer!

Read Skeemers first post in this thread. He admits regret voting for Bush. Give everyone else a chance to revisit our pre-november disussions so they can reevalaute the "strong leadership" of Bush.

Then let them take actions to stop Bush's assault on our country.

Jaybird
08-30-2005, 12:48
Whack and stack the elk and buffalo. What a barbecue! :D




BUFFALO BURGERS, ELK STEAKS....m-m-m-m-m-m-m-GOOD!

BUSH taking our NATIONAL PARKS.....m-m-m-m-m-m-m-BADDDDDDDDDDD! :D

dougmeredith
08-30-2005, 13:08
On a more serious note (not really related to the question in the original post, but perhaps more hiking-related) I would hate to see National Parks shrink, either here in Canada or in the US. However I don't really like hiking in National Parks. Too many rules. Also, in Canada at least, it feels like Parks Canada views the parks as their possession that they are gifting me some use of. I take the view that these parks belong to the people, and they are simply those who we employ to manage them for us.

Doug

MOWGLI
08-30-2005, 13:16
Lest anyone try to claim this is a fabrication of the New York Times editorial board....



I still say the French are to blame. But perhaps the Germans had a hand in it too. Damn Europeans. Always speaking languages other than English. What's wrong with them?

tlbj6142
08-30-2005, 13:35
Exactly. Subject changed. Criticism deflected. Didn't even take an hour.Everyone does that. Its the easiest way to "win" an agrument.


Now, can you speak to the evidence that the Shrubbies have detailed plans on the front burner to destroy the places we all purportedly love? And if you happened to have voted for Bush/Cheney, how does it make you feel?It pisses me off, just like when Cliton (whom I didn't vote for) did stuff I didn't like. Some of you folks think that if you vote for a person you are endorsing all of their polices. That just isn't true. Each canidate has their Pros and Cons. I seriously doubt everyone is happy with every decission their candidates makes. Its just not possible.

dougmeredith
08-30-2005, 13:36
Some of you folks think that if you vote for a person you are endorsing all of their polices. That just isn't true. Each canidate has their Pros and Cons. I seriously doubt everyone is happy with every decission their candidates makes. Its just not possible.
You mean there is more than one issue? Don't let the secret out here. Most don't realize it. :)

Doug

Tim Seaver
08-30-2005, 13:50
Some of you folks think that if you vote for a person you are endorsing all of their polices. That just isn't true. Exactly..which is why this is a perfect opportunity for people, regardless of your political leanings, to speak out against Bush's destructive plan for our National Parks. It's sad to think that party loyalty could trump the need to preserve our parks for future generations.

Please let our officials know how you feel, in no uncertain terms. Letters will probably carry more weight than email, but every little bit helps:

Gale Norton, Secretary of the Interior
Gale_Norton@ios.doi.gov
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W
Washington, D.C. 20240 Fran P. Mainella, Director, National Park Service

NPS_Director@nps.gov
U.S. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
(202) 208-4621

Tha Wookie
08-30-2005, 14:33
Thanks, I just sent two letters. Anyone, feel free to copy and paste mine below, and make changes as you see fit.

Mrs. Norton,

Please stop the gutting of the national park ideals and scientific practices before it goes into effect in the proposed NPS restructuring. Wilderness Areas and National Parks should have NO oil drilling, cell towers, logging, mining, OHV riding, grazing, or any facility or technology that does not directly deal with recreation provision, research, or direct land management.

Although some impacts these activities might have on natural protected lands are technically reversible through long-term natural processes and costly rehabilitation, they do not come without a high ecological cost for our current and future generations.

Please keep the glutinous attitude of our country, and the private interests of the current Administration out of our National Parks and wilderness areas. Leave us some place that may exist in peace and natural harmony.

Sincerely,

Nate Olive
Nate Olive, M.A.
Recreation Ecologist/Trail Specialist
Registered Federal Research Contractor
Winterville, GA 30683
www.thawookie.com (http://www.thawookie.com)

Jack Tarlin
08-30-2005, 18:02
Gee, thanx for yet another "six tabloids a day" crack, Wook. You're turning into quite the little cheapshot artist, but your material is getting kinda lame. Cantcha think of ANYTHING original, ever?

For the record, as I've already stated, one of the papers I read every day is the New York Times, the same august and esteemed publication that was cited at the start of this thread. Sorry you have a problem with it.

Are you saying the Times is a tabloid, Wook?

Oh, and thanks for using the perjorative term "puppet" yet again; I understand that like a child who has learned a new nasty word, you feel the overwhelming need to bleat this insult every few hours in absence of anything new to say; thanks for not letting us down by missing a day. God forbid you should surprise us with something new and different. The wit and incisiveness displayed in your repeated and tired use of the same childish epithets really adds to your postings here, but you really might wanna get some new lines one of these days; your constant use of the same ones is really getting kind of boring.

Tim Seaver
08-30-2005, 18:14
Any thoughts on the Hoffman re-write, Jack?

Tha Wookie
08-30-2005, 18:20
You need to cut your strings Jack and answer the question.The excrement of your daily injestion never seems to fail to produce.

Jack Tarlin
08-30-2005, 18:26
Yeah, lots of thoughts. But I'm gonna wait til I actually see and read the whole thing, and not just snippets in an editorial.

Plus, this was the Times after all, and thanx to Wook's sage advice, I try and keep an open mind when dealing with tabloid journalism.

You can't be too careful.

Sly
08-30-2005, 18:48
Yeah, lots of thoughts. But I'm gonna wait til I actually see and read the whole thing, and not just snippets in an editorial.



Here you go in case you lost the link...

http://www.npsretirees.org/index.htm

Tim Seaver
08-30-2005, 18:58
This letter may be of interest as well.

It's from the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees to the Director of U.S. Department of the Interior. (emphasis mine)


August 25, 2005



Dear Director Mainella:



On behalf of over 400 members of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees we implore you to reconsider proceeding ahead on the current effort to revise the Management Policies of the National Park Service. The present policies, last up-dated in 2001, are the most effective management policies ever put into place. The political leadership of the Department of the Interior and National Park Service seem ready to abandon long-established management policies that have served the nation well. Previous generations of Americans who have added the areas to the system that they believed merited protection in perpetuity would be enraged; the current generation ought to fear that the park legacy they pass on to their children and their children’s children will be compromised by the misguided efforts to make wholesale changes in how we manage our precious parks. The radical rewrite of the management policies, authored by the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Fish, Wildlife and Parks, is the only document of record that exists of this sad effort and represents a level of astounding arrogance and ignorance. The suggested revision turns its back on a 100 years legislative history, case law, and park management experience carefully and artfully constructed by generations of bi-partisan effort.



We note with interest your most recent message in the ARROWHEAD (summer 2005) in which you announce the launch of your personal legacy program, “Doing Business in the 21st Century” guided by five basic goals to preserve the NPS legacy. The goals of Management Excellence, Sustainability, Conservation, Outdoor Recreation, and 21st Century Relevancy are admirable goals. However, these goals will mean nothing if you are a party to the dismantling of the management policies that have evolved over the 89-year history of the National Park Service. As you work to establish an enduring legacy of your efforts while Director of the National Park Service we can think of none better than holding the Service together by defending the present policies from any revision that threatens the foundations of the mission of the National Park Service.



We initially appreciated your invitation to join in the effort to the National Park Service to review these policies even though you have denied our subsequent offers to assist. We are appalled at how this effort is being cloaked in a heavy veil of secrecy where not even your own employees, such as the superintendents, who must implement the policies in the parks, are involved with the effort. The Secretary’s 4-C’s Program, that has been gratuitously added throughout the draft revision, is in direct contradiction to the secretive and selective review process you are presently engaged in.



The Coalition of NPS Retirees opposes this attempt to hijack the management of the 388 areas of our nation’s park system and convert them into mediocre areas where almost anything goes. Both political parties have traditionally viewed the management of our parks as an area where partisan politics were set aside and decisions were made based on the public interest. The draft policies developed by the Department of the Interior shatter that precedent and convert the management policies into a political agenda to weaken the preservation and protection of the areas that previous generations have added to the system. These changes must not be made, not only because they would set the Park Service on the path of mediocrity, but also as a matter of generational equity. We should not trash the legacy that we have received from our predecessors. How you respond to this issue will determine you own personal legacy as the 16th Director of the National Park Service.



Sincerely,







Robert Arnberger

Don Castleberry

Shirley Clark

Denny Huffman

Jerry Rogers

Rick Smith

Bill Wade

rickb
08-30-2005, 19:57
I was a bit confused, until I clicked here (taken from Sly's link, just a clever flash graphic)

http://www.npsretirees.org/parkDisservice_001.exe

Tim Seaver
08-30-2005, 20:06
Controversy Over Plans for Changes in U.S. Parks (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-na-parks26aug26,0,7654249.story?coll=la-home-headlines)


(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-na-parks26aug26,0,7654249.story?coll=la-home-headlines)...."Paul Hoffman had some initial suggestions and prompted us," said David Barna, a Park Service spokesman. "Paul Hoffman was playing devil's advocate. He was saying, 'Show us, the political appointees who make policy, why do you do things the way you do?' It was a starting point. We're a long way from that now. They have drafted a new raw draft."


(I don't buy the "devil's advocate" line for a minute - Tim)

......."I was profoundly shocked at how far it went," said a participant in the workshop. He said the group continued to work on the rewrite but was not sure if its watered-down version would be acceptable to Interior officials.

A Park Service supervisor participating in redrafting the policy said a new version was not ready. He rejected the assertion that Hoffman's version was intended only as a provocative idea-generator.

Chip
08-30-2005, 20:21
:clap Right On !!! Rain Man !!!

Greed and Power at work again, how sad .

For more info see: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9087265/

When will people wake up and see the truth :datz ?

I fear when it is too late :eek: .




What I see--> you've bought into the Republican, Chamber of Commerce, and insurance industry rhertoric and lies, lock, stock, and barrel.

Unions and "trial lawyers" (see "Erin Brockovich") stand for the little guys against those who exalt the "love of money" (see I Timothy) above all else. I see what Christ Jesus preached.

That's good ethics in my book. I see standing for the rich and powerful and corrupt and secret agendas as what destroys ethics.

We don't see things the same way. That's what makes the world go round.

Rain:sunMan

.

Tha Wookie
08-30-2005, 20:55
Check out this unbelievable story hot off the press from the Times-Picayune in New Orleans: (my emphasis)

http://www.nola.com/images/spacer.gifFrom:

http://www.nola.com/newslogs/breakingtp/?/mtlogs/nola_Times-Picayune/archives/2005_08.html#075048

Even a cop joins in the looting

Mike Perlstein and Brian Thevenot
Staff writers

Law enforcement efforts to contain the emergency left by Katrina slipped into chaos in parts of New Orleans Tuesday with some police officers and firefighters joining looters in picking stores clean.

At the Wal-Mart on Tchoupitoulas Street, an initial effort to hand out provisions to stranded citizens quickly disintegrated into mass looting. Authorities at the scene said bedlam erupted after the giveaway was announced over the radio.

While many people carried out food and essential supplies, others cleared out jewelry racks and carted out computers, TVs and appliances on handtrucks.

Some officers joined in taking whatever they could, including one New Orleans cop who loaded a shopping cart with a compact computer and a 27-inch flat screen television.

Officers claimed there was nothing they could do to contain the anarchy, saying their radio communications have broken down and they had no direction from commanders.

“We don’t have enough cops to stop it,” an officer said. “A mass riot would break out if you tried.”

Inside the store, the scene alternated between celebration and frightening bedlam. A shirtless man straddled a broken jewelry case, yelling, “Free samples, free samples over here.”

Another man rolled a mechanized pallet, stacked six feet high with cases of vodka and whiskey. Perched atop the stack was a bewildered toddler.

Throughout the store and parking lot, looters pushed carts and loaded trucks and vans alongside officers. One man said police directed him to Wal-Mart from Robert’s Grocery, where a similar scene was taking place. A crowd in the electronics section said one officer broke the glass DVD case so people wouldn’t cut themselves.

“The police got all the best stuff. They’re crookeder than us,” one man said.

Most officers, though, simply stood by powerless against the tide of law breakers.

One veteran officer said, “It’s like this everywhere in the city. This tiny number of cops can’t do anything about this. It’s wide open.”

At least one officer tried futilely to control a looter through shame.

“When they say take what you need, that doesn’t mean an f-ing TV,” the officer shouted to a looter. “This is a hurricane, not a free-for-all.”

Sandra Smith of Baton Rouge walked through the parking lot with a 12-pack of Bud Light under each arm. “I came down here to get my daughters,” she said, “but I can’t find them.”

The scene turned so chaotic at times that entrances were blocked by the press of people and shopping carts and traffic jams sprouted on surrounding streets.

Some groups organized themselves into assembly lines to more efficiently cart off goods.

Toni Williams, 25, packed her trunk with essential supplies, such as food and water, but said mass looting disgusted and frightened her.

“I didn’t feel safe. Some people are going overboard,” she said.

Inside the store, one woman was stocking up on make-up. She said she took comfort in watching police load up their own carts.

“It must be legal,” she said. “The police are here taking stuff, too.”

(Staff writers Doug MacCash and Keith Spera assisted in this story.)

Sly
08-30-2005, 21:06
I'm a gettin'

Rain Man
08-30-2005, 21:59
And who can forget the old lady who spilled hot coffee on herself and won the lawsuit....

Just another example of the lies spread by the Chamber of Commerce/insurance industry/GOP types, though I credit you for not faking any facts, Skeemer, about it. Most who mention this case do so to the extent it has become much more mythical (lies) than real (truthful).

For those interested in the truth, and unwilling to do their own Google searches,--

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/onlyinamerica.htm

This lady was one among several people over time burned by this McDonalds for super-heating its coffee. It had been told repeatedly of the resulting injuries and ignored the warnings. She was severely burned through no fault of her own, required numerous skin grafts, and asked for little money for her medical expenses only. She only sued as a last resort when McDonalds refused even that.

Once a jury of independent folks (not big business crybabies) heard all the evidence from both sides, they ordered that she be reimbursed for her actual injuries and tacked on a punitive amount, as was only right. Big businesses only respond to pocketbook issues, not to moral or ethical compulsion, it appears. Of course, their defenders blame "trial lawyers" for every sin and shortcoming in Western civilization, so this just HAD to be the fault of "lawyers." What ever happened to "personal responsibility" by the "person" (McDonalds) that caused this horrible avoidable injury?

As the Chamber of Commerce/insurance industry/GOP is trying to do away with the American jury system as we know it by encouraging these lies about real and mythical cases, I defer to Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in a letter to Thomas Paine, 1789: "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." I wonder why those powers-that-be, therefore, are undermining the little guy's day in court every which way possible?

Do you know why Shakespeare's character said "First, let's kill all the lawyers"? Because that was part of his plot to take over the civil government. Sounds like a lot of apologists for big business just want to hamstring lawyers if they can't out-and-out kill them, for the same purpose.

I just appreciate truth about actual cases, not agendas propped up with lies about cases. Then let the chips fall where they may.

Now, back to the hiking channel. LOL

Rain:sunMan

.

digger51
08-31-2005, 01:49
Ho hum....

Skeemer
08-31-2005, 08:45
Gee, I wonder how many people drank that terrible super heated coffee at McDonalds (and loved it that way) without scorching themselves...millions maybe?

I'm for people taking responsibility for their own accidents and not trying to blame everything bad on everyone else.

Take off your neck brace and return to the trail!

Skyline
08-31-2005, 18:10
Everyone does that. Its the easiest way to "win" an agrument.

Anyone CAN do it, but if you look back over the past 10 or 15 years, who do you see has done it (changed the subject, deflected criticism, demonized opponents) the most, and very consistently? It's definitely not the moderates or liberals. It's usually the conservatives, and more often than not it's got Karl Rove's fingerprint on it.

Poor Clinton couldn't even buy himself some good press during his second term, "liberal" media notwithstanding. Even when he tried his best to be proactive re: Bin Laden by retaliating for past terror the GOP spinmeisters, already in a bid to impeach him, accused him of wagging the dog. They accused HIM of trying to change the subject. If Bush had sent those missiles after AQ, they would have canonized him on Fox News--but because it was Clinton, they yelled foul. It's hypocritical, especially now because some on the Right make outrageous claims that 9/11 was Clinton's "fault." There was enough "fault" to go around that nobody should have the nerve to point fingers.

Lilred
08-31-2005, 18:14
I believe the lack of responsibility by many people in this country is alarming, and lawsuits that are trivial are a burden on this nation. However, I must agree with Rain Man on this one. Without trial lawyers, the little guy would be stepped on over and over again. I saw pictures of the legs of the woman who sued McDonalds, and they were horrific. Any coffee that was heated up to the temp to do that kind of damage was negligent on the part of the business. The business had been previously warned and obviously ignored the warnings. Suppose a young mother had accidently spilled it on her child? At the same time though, there ought to be a ceiling on the amount of money awarded, say, hospital cost and then a fixed settlement. Death gets so much, loss of limb so much, etc..... just like the insurance companies do.

Blue Jay
08-31-2005, 18:35
I believe the lack of responsibility by many people in this country is alarming, and lawsuits that are trivial are a burden on this nation. However, I must agree with Rain Man on this one. Without trial lawyers, the little guy would be stepped on over and over again. I saw pictures of the legs of the woman who sued McDonalds, and they were horrific. Any coffee that was heated up to the temp to do that kind of damage was negligent on the part of the business. The business had been previously warned and obviously ignored the warnings. Suppose a young mother had accidently spilled it on her child? At the same time though, there ought to be a ceiling on the amount of money awarded, say, hospital cost and then a fixed settlement. Death gets so much, loss of limb so much, etc..... just like the insurance companies do.

Forgive Skeemer, he's been a Corporate Stooge all his life, he does not know any better.

dougmeredith
08-31-2005, 19:03
Anyone CAN do it, but if you look back over the past 10 or 15 years, who do you see has done it (changed the subject, deflected criticism, demonized opponents) the most, and very consistently? It's definitely not the moderates or liberals. It's usually the conservatives, and more often than not it's got Karl Rove's fingerprint on it.
You see when a bleeding heart starts to rant about something that makes no sense (which is the things they rant about), there is no point in arguing with them. You might as well just talk about something else.

Doug

ps. Bleeding hearts, please don't take offense. I am intentionally trying to be over the top as a silly response to Skyline's extreme/absolute/prejudiced statements.

MOWGLI
08-31-2005, 19:16
There is a tactic that has been employed in the last 10 years that has become extraordinarily effective. Conservative Talk Radio has had a HUGE hand in this. I know - cause I listen to it regularly. If you throw enough spaghetti against the wall, some of it will eventually stick. Truth doesn't ususally matter in this exercise. It's all about fulfilling an agenda. Say something over and over, and over again, and people will believe it to be true. "Global Warming is a Hoax." "Clinton is a Cocaine Dealer." "The French are the cause of all of our problems." "Rudy Giuliani is a Great Man." "The NY Times is an unreliable Liberal newspaper." And on & on it goes...

Now you're welcome to disagree with me, or course. But if you do, I'm likely to think that you haven't been paying attention.

Lilred
08-31-2005, 19:29
There is a tactic that has been employed in the last 10 years that has become extraordinarily effective. Conservative Talk Radio has had a HUGE hand in this. I know - cause I listen to it regularly. If you throw enough spaghetti against the wall, some of it will eventually stick. Truth doesn't ususally matter in this exercise. It's all about fulfilling an agenda. Say something over and over, and over again, and people will believe it to be true. "Global Warming is a Hoax." "Clinton is a Cocaine Dealer." "The French are the cause of all of our problems." "Rudy Giuliani is a Great Man." "The NY Times is an unreliable Liberal newspaper." And on & on it goes...

Now you're welcome to disagree with me, or course. But if you do, I'm likely to think that you haven't been paying attention.


Well Put. The TV talk shows are just as bad. Did anyone see Dennis Miller's appearance on that conservative talk show? I forget the name of it, he nailed the guy that wears that bow tie. The producer of the show AGREED with Miller.

Guess you can tell how much I watch those kind of shows........with ole whatshisname......... I know someone out there can fill in the names for me.

Sly
08-31-2005, 19:36
Well Put. The TV talk shows are just as bad. Did anyone see Dennis Miller's appearance on that conservative talk show? I forget the name of it, he nailed the guy that wears that bow tie. The producer of the show AGREED with Miller.

Guess you can tell how much I watch those kind of shows........with ole whatshisname......... I know someone out there can fill in the names for me.

Tucker Carlson or Tom Oliphant...

Gray Blazer
09-01-2005, 07:44
I don't, there is too much BS in the world already.
Thankyou!
Thankyou!
Thankyou!

Gray Blazer
09-01-2005, 07:47
Not fond of bear meat. Although I've only eaten black bear. Griz may be good.
Yeah, it tastes just like bald Eagle.

Skeemer
09-01-2005, 15:30
...and for capitalizing Corporate and Stooge...you are turning into a real softy and a very respectful one at that.

I may not be the "brightest bulb in the pack" but I'm happy.

Blue Jay
09-01-2005, 19:15
...and for capitalizing Corporate and Stooge...you are turning into a real softy and a very respectful one at that.

I may not be the "brightest bulb in the pack" but I'm happy.

Yes, but I'm not sure that is the correct spelling of Stooge.