View Full Version : Bush administration attack on hiking opportunities -speak out today-
Tha Wookie
10-14-2005, 14:27
American Hiking Society’s Capitol Trails Broadcast
E-Trails Alert for Hikers
October 2005, No. 85
[/url]
[url="http://www.net.org/petition.php?partner=AHS"] Sign the Citizen’s Petition to Help Protect Our Last Roadless Forests! (http://www.net.org/petition.php?partner=AHS)
On May 5, the Bush administration repealed the widely supported Roadless Area Conservation Rule, opening nearly sixty million acres of America's last wild National Forests to logging, road construction, mining, oil exploration, and other forms of development.
Under the new policy, if governors wish to have roadless areas within their state protected, they must complete a burdensome petition process and file their recommendations with political appointees at the Department of Agriculture. The federal government is free to accept, modify or reject these petitions, while elected officials and citizens outside those states will have no say about the fate of these shared national treasures.
The many ecological benefits of roadless areas — such as large, undisturbed landscapes, improving air and water quality, and preserving habitat for plant and animal species — are all important to hikers and the hiking experience. Roadless areas provide outstanding backcountry recreational opportunities and include thousands of trails across the country.
American Hiking Society and conservationists throughout the country are joining together to file an official petition with the Bush administration to demand the reinstatement of the 2001 rule that limited logging and road-building on nearly sixty million acres of national forests. The petition will be filed under the auspices of the Administrative Procedures Act, which allows citizens to request that the government, issue, amend, or revoke federal rules.
We believe that:
America's last roadless National Forests belong to each and every American and all our remaining roadless areas should be protected, completely and permanently through reinstatement of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule of 2001.
Join the Petition
If you agree with the statement above, please join your fellow Americans and sign the petition TODAY! (http://www.net.org/petition.php?partner=AHS) It's quick, easy, and can help ensure our pristine National Forests remain wild for future generations. A petition with all of the signatures will be presented to President Bush and the Department of Agriculture. Additionally, a copy of the petition will be delivered to your Governor.
Tell Your Friends & Family
We need citizens from every state and all walks of life to sign the petition and join the effort to protect our last wild forests. Please take a moment and forward the petition around and help us generate many more signatures.
Click here to learn more about this issue. (http://www.americanhiking.org/policy/current/roadless.html)
Thank you!
dougmeredith
10-14-2005, 14:46
Wookie,
I know from previous posts that you are very sincere in what you say and you probably truly think that Bush is evil (forgive me if this term is too strong), but you might benefit the cause you care about more by toning down the rhetoric. The subject of your thread may prevent Republicans who agree with you from signing the petition. If you focused more on the issue at hand, rather than on your dislike of Bush, you might get more support.
Anyway, you know what free advice is worth. :)
Doug
Yeah, Wookie change "Bush gang's" to BushCo! ;)
Signed and sent!
Crazy Legs
10-14-2005, 15:07
I hope this word is spread across many different forums. It's a simple thing to sign this petition, but will hopefully have a great impact. If anyone knows of any other action that is being taken, please share!
Whistler
10-14-2005, 15:38
Thanks for posting Wookie. On a side note, I would argue that the problem isn't Bush per se, but lack of local control. Governors have to "petition" for approval from a federal department? That's absurd. We haven't had a functional 10th Amendment for decades.
-Mark
Alligator
10-14-2005, 15:39
Wookie,
I know from previous posts that you are very sincere in what you say and you probably truly think that Bush is evil (forgive me if this term is too strong), but you might benefit the cause you care about more by toning down the rhetoric. The subject of your thread may prevent Republicans who agree with you from signing the petition. If you focused more on the issue at hand, rather than on your dislike of Bush, you might get more support.
Anyway, you know what free advice is worth. :)
DougThis is sage advice Wook, hope you think it over.
I signed.
Here in Florida Brother Bush put a stop to that **** in a hurry. We have unimproved tax laws here. The federal Government pays very little in property taxes unless they improve the property. The taxes are increased like they are developing the land. They took the state to court and lost. There won't be more roads here. Just so you know not all Bushes are the same.
Clyde
As an AHS Staffer, I work with lots & lots of volunteers from all over the political spectrum. That's one of the great things about hiking. Regardless of what you do in the voting booth, we can all agree that hiking or backpacking is enjoyable. In fact, I often backpack with folks that I hardly ever agree with politically.
I appreciate Tha Wookie posting this announcement from our Conservation Director. It is an important issue no matter how you vote.
This issue generated more public comments than any issue that the USDA Forest Service has ever tackled. More than 90% of the comments were in favor of the Roadless Rules. That means lots of Conservative, Liberals, Tree Huggers, Hunters, and lots & lots of other folks raised their voices in favor of protecting existing roadless areas.
If you've got a minute, and enjoy wild places, please take a moment and check out the petition.
Thanks,
Jeffrey Hunter
Tha Wookie
10-14-2005, 16:47
Alright, forget I mentioned our president and his assortment of questionable cohorts in their recent legal actions that led to my passing along of the post.
Doug, your advice is very good, and well taken. It might have been more effective not to use the word Bush or Gang. I just don't have any emotional attachment to the man, so I don't care what people say about him. He really doesn't actually exist anyway. I'm not sure if he's ever had a thought on his own. I never even see him -I see straight through him. When I titled the posting, I just looked at another thread in the forum and was trying to say something other than admistration. I thought "gang" sounded a lot better than "terrorists" or "thugs", but they all apply.
By the way, that name is soley MY view, and not the view of AHS. They are amazingly silent on the Bush front, since they have to be as a non-profit. Unfortunately, the attack on hiking opportunuties does come from a political body. I imagine they do a lot of editing trying to not spell out reality (meaning the obvious side that attacks hiking areas) because of their financial obligations. Considering their status, I suppose that is fair.
I, however, have the luxury of being as politically incorrect as I please, since I am independent. There is a reason for that. Maybe one day I will join a non-profit organization and zip my mouth shut. That is, after all, how the system is designed.
So before I retract, only for the sake of hiker solidarity, the word "gang", I'll spell out the definition and let you decide if it is appropriate:
GANG n. 1. A number of persons acting or operating together; a group; a squad. -Webster
We can stand together and undo it.
TJ aka Teej
10-14-2005, 17:19
...you might benefit the cause you care about more by toning down the rhetoric.
Doug - Wook only said "gang", that's hardly "rhetoric" worth "toning down"! I probably would've typed "The Bush Crime Family", myself. And that's still too tame a term for the mob that's taken control of the Republican Party.
Jeffery - Thanks for all you do to help Trails and Hikers, especially in with the Southern Appalachian Initiative.
Wook - I got that email today too. The American Hiking Society trailblazed activism in support of our Trails, and they are well worth our support. I had a conservation via emails with Celina a while back about the real impact of emails and online petitions vs. actual letters and phone calls. She agreed that while e-support is very important, letters and phone calls carry more weight. Sign the petitions, send the emails - but follow up with a letter or phone call if you can!
everyone - You don't have to join the AHS (but I hope you do consider joining) to get the e-mail alerts. Go to http://www.americanhiking.org/ and subscribe to the e-trails alert. If the AHS sounds familiar to you, it's probably because you've heard of National Trails Day, an AHS event held each June!
----
from the AHS email:
To call your Member of Congress:
US Capitol Switchboard
(202) 224-3121
To locate your Member on-line:
U.S. House of Representatives: http://www.house.gov/ (http://www.house.gov/)
U.S. Senate: http://www.senate.gov/ (http://www.senate.gov/)
White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ (http://www.whitehouse.gov/)
Library of Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/ (http://thomas.loc.gov/)
Comprehensive information about Congress, including legislation, committees, and Member information. Also provides links to other judicial and administrative branches as well as state and local governments.
Thanks Teej.
I had been meaning to join AHS for awhile now and finally did. Plus, if you join now you get a years subscription to Backpacker Magazine. A twofer!!!!
Bravo on your mentioning the 10th ammendment, Whistler.
Thanks for posting Wookie. On a side note, I would argue that the problem isn't Bush per se, but lack of local control. Governors have to "petition" for approval from a federal department? That's absurd. We haven't had a functional 10th Amendment for decades.
-Mark
Also, wasn't this roadless rule put into affect by Pres. Clinton through an executive order almost the day before he left office? That ain't right either.
When policies are made, those who make them must look at all sides of an issue and try to do what is best for all. We on Whiteblaze might tend to look at things with tunnel vision because our interests only lie with protecting the trail. This is a good and noble thing to do and needs to be done. However, we shouldn't demonize and spew hate at those, who because of their responsibilities, must look at all aspects of policy, not just the A.T. Let us bring our argument with facts and logic, not just blind passion. A pursuassive argument backed by logic, common sense and facts is hard to resist. Ranting and raving against the president, I'm afraid, won't get you very far except with those who already hate him anyway.
BTW, I won't be supporting the petition or joining the AHS. Sorry. I AM an ATC member and do support its goals because I think they are reasonable.
BTW, I won't be supporting the petition or joining the AHS. Sorry. I AM an ATC member and do support its goals because I think they are reasonable.
If I'm not mistaken the ATC supports the AHS position.
If I'm not mistaken the ATC supports the AHS position.
You are correct Sly. Dave Startzell, Executive Director of the ATC is a member of the Board of Directors of AHS, and has been for several years. In fact, he was just appointed Chairman, and is involved in developing policy - on issues like the Roadless Rule, Clean Air, accessibility, and so on.
My point is that American Hiking Society and the Appalachian Trail Conservancy do not work at cross purposes. ATC is a member organization of AHS, and we serve their interests.
shades of blue
10-15-2005, 09:14
You can support someone, but not support everything they do. I think that's one of the pitfalls in modern political activism. People (not necessarily you...but lots of politicals) are considered disloyal if you disagree. That's one reason I like McCain (and he is even a damn Republican). McCain will say something is wrong, even if it disagrees with his party....see his new law on trying to end abuse for prisoners in our military custody. He will call it on the Dems too. I may not agree with all McCain says or does...but I sure respect him...at least so far. I believe the repulsion of the Roadless rule will give the corporations more freedom to do things like what they did in SNP and all over the South. We don't have much wilderness left...it needs to be protected.
My .02
In fact I've never seen a politician who accurately represents my personal views. I just pick one or two things that seem to be likely to be affected by a particular candidate that are important to me and pick that candidate. I'd drop Bush like a hot potato if the next guy was gonna protect the environment (in a way that made sense for the worlds expanding global economy) and legalize weed AND continue the campaign to promote democracy and fight radical islamism. I figure the environment will last out the war and we'll still be able to pass some greener laws down the road after global cooperation of democracies makes it possible to negotiate these things rationally. Or mabye a green movement among conservatives will develop. I'm sure it will be far more rational and effective in its efforts to preserve the environment than the current motley assortment of radical eco-"terrorists" and treehuggers who believe all the hyped psuedo-science that passes for an environmental movement these days...
I might sign the petition though.
Teatime wrote:
When policies are made, those who make them must look at all sides of an issue and try to do what is best for all.
best for all...man what planet are you from...Aren't most of the political decisions of either party influenced by what they believe will get them votes which is heavily influenced by campaign contributors and lobbyists inside the beltway?
Every decision made by every person in every walk of life is, for to the most part, selfish. Individuals, corportations, government, religion etc....I don't care what it is...it's all self-serving (money, power, prestige, etc.)
Unfortunately, the republicans don't give a ***** about the environment and it's not because they don't like mountains, trees, the outdoors, trails, birds and clean water. They have to "pay back" their biggest supporters...the loggers, lumber, paper, manufacturing, chemicals, etc.
Convince me they do "what's best for all"...I'm all ears.
Every decision made by every person in every walk of life is, for to the most part, selfish. Individuals, corportations, government, religion etc....I don't care what it is...it's all self-serving (money, power, prestige, etc.)
Enlightened self interest is the only hope we have of motivating the population of the world to save itself. What other reasoning would be better?
Additionally, you should take another look at the people around you. Any of them parents? Teachers? scientists? almost all of the people i know take pride in our civilisation, built through the cooperation and sacrifice of our ancestors and delight in contributing the the further development of civilisation, the arts, sciences etc. etc. I'm one of those people who never bets against his own team...
Pacific Tortuga
10-16-2005, 15:30
After reading your opinions bfitz it looks like you can swing both ways with your teams,your not a switch hitter are you?. My two favorite teams are the U.S.A. and who ever your "team" is playing.
bfitz responded:
Enlightened self interest is the only hope we have of motivating the population of the world to save itself. What other reasoning would be better?
I was thinking of setting aside self interest from time to time when issues that are important to all mankind prevail...issues like the environment...but your response has me thinking...saving the environment because of enlightened self-interest is a different kind of self-interest than staying in power. Are you saying that because my self-interest is environment and when I become enlightened and realize that Bush is bad for the environment that that's what's good?
After reading your opinions bfitz it looks like you can swing both ways with your teams,your not a switch hitter are you?. My two favorite teams are the U.S.A. and who ever your "team" is playing.
I was thinking of setting aside self interest from time to time when issues that are important to all mankind prevail...issues like the environment...but your response has me thinking...saving the environment because of enlightened self-interest is a different kind of self-interest than staying in power. Are you saying that because my self-interest is environment and when I become enlightened and realize that Bush is bad for the environment that that's what's good?
I'm not quite sure how I got misinterpreted. I know I can get on a high horse from time to time but I never intended any insult (if in fact one was percieved...I'm not even sure...) As far as being a switch-hitter, I guess I can decipher that insinuation, and I'm not one. The team I was referring too was humanity, and presumably we're both on the same one, unless there's something I'm missing. What I meant to say was that I find that I like and admire most of the people I know, and don't consider them selfish or unworthy at all. I do recognize that in a way that isn't evil or wrong, people act out of their own self interest. I think that (and believe its obvious that) that doesn't mean they'll "do anything" to achieve base personal gratification without thought to others (in general, that is) and I think that (for example) the idea of saving the environment for its own sake is meaningless. And taking drastic steps to save the environment that curtails global economic growth is dangerous. It's also obvious that humanity in general and our decendants specifically depend on the environment and the development of stable, well engineered (yes, engineered) and managed ecosystems to provide for the needs of humanity. I understand that humanity is full of beautiful and dangerous quirks, but my money is on humanity's long term survival and success. While I disagree with Gearge Bush on many issues, I voted for him because his approach to promoting free markets and democracy is the one that will allow humanity's natural self interest to be put to its highest and best evolutionary use. I could be wrong, but I dont think so. In any case, to my own principles, I remain true, even if they arent totally aligned with any one political movement on the ballots today. Hope I ceared up any misunderstandings. And I hope I was misunderstood, cuz...ouch!
Also, I love the USA, and believe it has been the greatest force for good and progress in our world. If I didn't like it here I'd pack up my ***** and leave.
Blue Jay
10-17-2005, 08:52
I do recognize that in a way that isn't evil or wrong, people act out of their own self interest. I think that (and believe its obvious that) that doesn't mean they'll "do anything" to achieve base personal gratification without thought to others (in general, that is) and I think that (for example) the idea of saving the environment for its own sake is meaningless.
I misunderstood you also. Most people I have met will do anything to achieve base personal gratification completely without thought to others. Americans consume far more than their share of everything. We know it, we glory in it and we're going to continue to do it to the last drop of oil or natural strand of DNA. If there were oil in the Sistine Chapel we'd destroy it. We will eventually strip mine every national park and genetically "engineer" every living thing.
I may be also be misunderstanding your statement that the idea that saving the environment for its own sake is meaningless. How about saving it for its intrinsic, unique in the universe, if destroyed never to be recreated, beauty. The physical essence that is the earth is far beyond the price of mere money.
We do not own it, if we did we'd treat it with respect.
Tha Wookie
10-17-2005, 09:06
Also, I love the USA, and believe it has been the greatest force for good and progress in our world. If I didn't like it here I'd pack up my ***** and leave.
No offense to you, but that sounds cowardly to me. Why not stay, fight, and change what you don't like? Isn't that part of America, to stand and speak for what you believe, to change it for what you deem to be better?
I may be also be misunderstanding your statement that the idea that saving the environment for its own sake is meaningless. How about saving it for its intrinsic, unique in the universe, if destroyed never to be recreated, beauty. The physical essence that is the earth is far beyond the price of mere money.
Nope, you're not misunderstanding me, at least on this particular point. While it may be beautiful, and I aknowledge that it is very beautiful, I recognize that it, along with everything else in the universe and the universe itself, is ephemeral. The earth, along with everything on it has been melted, vaporized, frozen, smashed, meted and vaporised again. We are as much a part of this process as the sun and big rocks flying through space are. In fact every moment of existence is a step down the inevitable road to entropic oblivion. We exist as one of the unverses many mechanisms to consume itself. It's true that wanton overconsumption threatens our own well being through destruction of the environment which provides for us. I believe that the environment and everything exists to be consumed. The only question is how and when. It makes sense when your hiking not to eat all your candy bars on the first day out because you'll be stuck with ramen for the rest of the trip. This logic applies to earth and everything in it. Until we have an idea where tomorrows food is coming from, we shouldn't eat everything today. But I dont plan on starving just so the food can continue looking pretty on the table, and I don't expect anyone else to either. Managing the resources we have so they can be consumed in a more logical fashion is a good idea. Putting resources off limits while humanity's endeavors suffer for the lack of them makes no sense. Putting all our genius into engineering and managing the earth so that it functions in more efficient ways to service humanity's needs makes perfect sense to me. We can even make it pretty. But in the end it's for eatin.
No offense to you, but that sounds cowardly to me. Why not stay, fight, and change what you don't like? Isn't that part of America, to stand and speak for what you believe, to change it for what you deem to be better?
Yeah, your right. And I do plenty of that. Or at least some of that. What I meant was I love America, and that's why I'm here. Anyone who thought I was putting down the USA misunderstood me. But you are damned well right, the main reason I like it so much is that its built on the very concept you have just espoused.
Rain Man
10-17-2005, 11:17
... And taking drastic steps to save the environment that curtails global economic growth is dangerous. ...
Why is that? Is this the Gospel According To The Chamber Of Commerce? Growth for the sake of growth is scriptural gospel, is it???
While I disagree with Gearge Bush on many issues, I voted for him because his approach to promoting free markets and democracy is the one that will allow humanity's natural self interest to be put to its highest and best evolutionary use....!
This is news to me. George Bush promotes free markets and democracy and humanity, does he?!!! ROTFLMAO So far as I can tell, he never saw a government handout in the form of corporate welfare that he didn't like. That's not "free market" in the least. Corporations are not a part of humanity. Humans are. Bush consistently puts the self-interest of corporations ahead of humans. That's his highest and best evolutionary use?
Rain:sunMan
.
And the earth would'nt be beautiful at all if you were'nt looking at it, bluejay. That part comes from you.
Rain-man your post is not specific enough to refute.
Just Jeff
10-17-2005, 13:05
Consumption is based on production. Welfare to individuals who don't produce is dangerous and destructive to society's continued existence. Welfare to those who produce, in the form of tax breaks to corporations and small businesses, promotes the economic well-being of the nation.
And it's that well-being, provided by the producers (evil capitalists, big business, etc), that finances the handouts to the non-producers (looters, moochers, etc).
Applied to the environment, it's the surplus provided by these producers that allows us to move beyond subsistence farming and gives us the luxury to ponder questions like how to best protect the environment. Take away their ability to produce and eventually society will be destroyed.
Of course we can find ways to be more responsible with the environment, but this idea that we should tax the hell out of big business and give it all back to XYZ cause (welfare, environment, NGOs, or whatever) is dangerous.
Robin Hood was a communist, and communism failed.
Alligator
10-17-2005, 13:11
Consumption is based on production. Welfare to individuals who don't produce is dangerous and destructive to society's continued existence. Welfare to those who produce, in the form of tax breaks to corporations and small businesses, promotes the economic well-being of the nation.
And it's that well-being, provided by the producers (evil capitalists, big business, etc), that finances the handouts to the non-producers (looters, moochers, etc).
....Let's box up those free lunches to kids in school and send them to the Halliburton offices! It's downright dangerous and destructive to keep those kids fed.
Robin Hood was a communist, and communism failed.
Seems to be alive and doing well in China, thanks to the capitalists. :rolleyes:
Just Jeff
10-17-2005, 14:20
Alligator - I didn't mean that welfare has absolutely no place in society. But welfare for its own sake is dangerous. Welfare recipients who think they're entitled to it, and the taxpayers who agree that it's an entitlement for those who need it, are countering everything this country was founded on. You have no right to my money just because you need it, but I can share it with you if I choose to.
Sly - China calls itself communist, but the individuals working in the village enterprises get to keep the profits they produce. Even if they don't "own" the land they're working on, their incentive is still production, and increasingly efficient production at that...the profit motive in full swing, which is exactly opposite to pure communism. Sounds like capitalism to me... :)
Other than that, the capitalists across the world are financing China's last claims to communism by buying their goods. (If I read you right, that's what you were saying, no?) I think China's communism is more political than economic, but even that is waning. As the government comes to depend on finances provided by the businessmen, they get more influence with the Party, which means decisions will come to be made in the interest of economics, and so on. (I'm not an expert in China, by any means.)
Not that we'll all get along just because they (may one day) become capitalists, but they're not really communist, either. But then, the US isn't anywhere close to pure capitalism, either.
Ok...back on topic - the environment! (Sorry for the hijack, Wookie!)
Whistler
10-17-2005, 14:40
Okay, back off topic. Sorry, Wookie. :]
A friend sent me this link. I post it with the disclaimer that I think most liberals, conservatives, moderates, Democrats, and Republicans are full of crap. With that said, parody is always enjoyable. Become a Republican:
http://www.thefrown.com/frowners/becomerepublican.swf (http://www.thefrown.com/frowners/becomerepublican.swf)
-Mark
SGT Rock
10-17-2005, 14:53
Really wasn't as funny as others I have seen
bulldog49
10-17-2005, 15:01
Rain-man your post is not specific enough to refute.
Consider the source, would you expect anything else from a Trial Lawyer? Last time I checked that bunch was lower on the list than Corporations and deservedly so.
Spartan Hiker
10-17-2005, 15:06
Consumption is based on production. Welfare to individuals who don't produce is dangerous and destructive to society's continued existence. Welfare to those who produce, in the form of tax breaks to corporations and small businesses, promotes the economic well-being of the nation.
And it's that well-being, provided by the producers (evil capitalists, big business, etc), that finances the handouts to the non-producers (looters, moochers, etc).
Applied to the environment, it's the surplus provided by these producers that allows us to move beyond subsistence farming and gives us the luxury to ponder questions like how to best protect the environment. Take away their ability to produce and eventually society will be destroyed.
Of course we can find ways to be more responsible with the environment, but this idea that we should tax the hell out of big business and give it all back to XYZ cause (welfare, environment, NGOs, or whatever) is dangerous.
Robin Hood was a communist, and communism failed.
BRAVO! Spot on.
Taking care of the trails is not a republican matter, nor is it a democratic matter. It's one that goes beyond our political beliefs and into our spiritual ones. At least it does for me personally.
Tha Wookie
10-17-2005, 19:00
Taking care of the trails is not a republican matter, nor is it a democratic matter. It's one that goes beyond our political beliefs and into our spiritual ones. At least it does for me personally.
Being without either corrupt Puppet Party, I think you're right to a degree. But when I vote, I know that Repulicans are going to axe anything without a profit, and that means our trails, forests, and parks. Just wait, soon the parks will be sponsored by corporations.
Can you imagine: This shelter brought to you by GM!
I vote for the environment, economy, and personal rights.
Guess you can see I don't vote Republican.
Sign the petition!:sun
Blue Jay
10-17-2005, 19:28
I believe that the environment and everything exists to be consumed.
Most would agree with you and that is exactly why, in one sentence, that the human race is doomed.
Blue Jay
10-17-2005, 19:31
And the earth would'nt be beautiful at all if you were'nt looking at it, bluejay. That part comes from you.
That is by far the most stupid statement ever made on WhiteBlaze, congratulations. You and I are not the center of the universe, although your ego is planet sized.
Jack Tarlin
10-17-2005, 19:35
Interestingly enough, Wook, I went thru the Smokies in '95, '97, '98, '99, and '00, during the days when we were led by those ardent environmentalists, Clinton and Gore. It seemed to me that the facilities in the Park were hardly improving under their leadership; in fact, the opposite was true. The place was falling apart.
So your argument that "trails, forests, and parks" are going to suffer under Republicans is simply not always the case. In some cases, Democrats are just as capable of neglect as anyone else. And let it not be forgotten that some of the preservation of some of our finest "trails, forests, and parks" came about due to the tireless efforts of Theodore Roosevelt, a staunch Republican.
Oh. I for once agree with your term "corrupt Puppet Party" when you're applying it to everyone. I've been a registered Independent for years, and will keep an open mind in 2006 and 2008. I look forward to voting for whichever candidates are the most qualified, and expect to vote for any number of Democrats next year, and with luck, for John McCain in 2008.
Pity he won't be running as an Independent, Wook. Maybe YOU might even vote for him!
I like your idea of corporate sponsorship of parkland, wookie.
Blue Jay, you sound almost religious. So what is the center of the universe? I think humanity's needs should take precedence over everything else. How exactly am I wrong? I'm glad the dinosaurs got creamed, because it made room for US and we're cooler.
Although I suppose the earth might also be beautiful to some visiting alien. If his sensory apparatus included eyes and emotional responses (a long shot).
Alligator
10-17-2005, 22:44
Alligator - I didn't mean that welfare has absolutely no place in society. But welfare for its own sake is dangerous. Welfare recipients who think they're entitled to it, and the taxpayers who agree that it's an entitlement for those who need it, are countering everything this country was founded on. You have no right to my money just because you need it, but I can share it with you if I choose to....Let's take the you out of it first, as I do not need your money. This country was founded by landed white men who denied the right to vote to poor landless men and all women. Child labor was pretty much the norm too. Good thing times have changed.
Uncle Sam has plenty of precedents and laws to take your money. Taxation has been in effect, for what, forever? Feel free to discuss that particular argument with the IRS:p .
It's not welfare for its own sake, its welfare for children. Children, especially small ones, have little grasp of economics and little concept of government. While these kids surely feel like lunch should be an entitlement, I suspect the poor children benefiting from welfare do not think that lunch should be an entitlement from the government.
Here are just a few facts about poor children in AMERICA. Keep them in mind the next time you want to be a hard-ass about a kid getting something to eat.
http://www.feedingchildrenbetter.org/pages/abouthunger/facts/index.jsp
Private dollars are not feeding these kids and trust me, there's more than enough money to do so.
Still haven't seen this addressed: Clinton signed this Roadless rule by executive order as he was heading out the door, right? Please, correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm right, who was he paying back? He also pardoned Mark Rich (I think that was the guys name) who is a criminal. Also, what the heck did we do before that rule came into affect.
Okay, so ATC may support this roadless rule. I support ATCs stance on the proposed North Shore highway in the Smokies and their position on the proposed I-4, which might go through Unicoi Gap. Maybe we should look at these things on a case by case basis. Maybe there are occassions where a road might be usefull or beneficial and not be so much of an impact.
By the way, I am from planet Earth. However, I did receive a public education which may account for my stupidity.:rolleyes:
Alligator
10-17-2005, 23:18
Interestingly enough, Wook, I went thru the Smokies in '95, '97, '98, '99, and '00, during the days when we were led by those ardent environmentalists, Clinton and Gore. It seemed to me that the facilities in the Park were hardly improving under their leadership; in fact, the opposite was true. The place was falling apart.
So your argument that "trails, forests, and parks" are going to suffer under Republicans is simply not always the case. In some cases, Democrats are just as capable of neglect as anyone else. And let it not be forgotten that some of the preservation of some of our finest "trails, forests, and parks" came about due to the tireless efforts of Theodore Roosevelt, a staunch Republican.
...Three reasons why this is a bad argument. First, it's only one park out of many and does not illustrate the goings on in other parks. Two, this particular park does not receive any revenue from gate fees, which could explain its underfunding. Last, the president is only good for but a few large initiatives. Congress controls the purse strings. All those years you mentioned, the purse strings were held by Republicans. And to date there continues to be a huge backload of maintenance in the National Parks, and but a short interlude of Democratic control in the Senate. However, Clinton did put out the Roadless Rule. How about it Jack, will you sign the petition?
P.S. Teddy Roosevelt was an outstanding president. Didn't he end his career with the Bull Moose Party, breaking with Republicans of his day;) ?
Tha Wookie
10-17-2005, 23:49
Interestingly enough, Wook, I went thru the Smokies in '95, '97, '98, '99, and '00, during the days when we were led by those ardent environmentalists, Clinton and Gore. It seemed to me that the facilities in the Park were hardly improving under their leadership; in fact, the opposite was true. The place was falling apart.
So your argument that "trails, forests, and parks" are going to suffer under Republicans is simply not always the case. In some cases, Democrats are just as capable of neglect as anyone else. And let it not be forgotten that some of the preservation of some of our finest "trails, forests, and parks" came about due to the tireless efforts of Theodore Roosevelt, a staunch Republican.
Oh. I for once agree with your term "corrupt Puppet Party" when you're applying it to everyone. I've been a registered Independent for years, and will keep an open mind in 2006 and 2008. I look forward to voting for whichever candidates are the most qualified, and expect to vote for any number of Democrats next year, and with luck, for John McCain in 2008.
Pity he won't be running as an Independent, Wook. Maybe YOU might even vote for him!
Hmmmm.... so you only agree with the puppet term when it's applied to both puppet parties, but not when just to Republicans. Interesting partisanship from an indie. I think they're both Puppets, but the reason why I say it so much with Bush is becuase he is the Puppets of puppets, the grand hand in the rear. No man is less of one. But yes, Jack, he's not the only one. Just the worst. Every time I remember the shaky Republican battle cry, "He's a strong leader", I just have to hang my head and cry. What a joke. No one says that anymore. Duh. What were they thinking?
ANYWAY..... I'm not sure where you get your info from about NPS management, but you might want a different source. Have you read the letters written by the past heads of the NPS, admonishing the Bush Admistration for its irresponsible managment of natural resources in the park? I work with the NPS on contractual basis, and let me tell you conservative and liberals alike have big problems with the Bush gang. Don't even get me going on the Forest Service. The situation there is grim.
Thanks to the immense budget cuts and high deficits run up by the liberally spending conservatives in power, they can't even keep up with goverment mandates for management. You think the trail was bad when you hiked it? At least there was a trail, Jack.
You cast your vote, and you'll have to live with it.
Until then, you can send the petition.
Alligator
10-18-2005, 00:05
Teddy Roosevelt would sign it in a heartbeat.:banana
Tha Wookie
10-18-2005, 00:25
from http://www.npsretirees.org/04_0708CCNPSRNR-CountertoDOIPC-FINAL.htm
FICTION: President Bush has spent billions to attack the maintenance backlog problem, which is pegged at $4.9-$6.8 billion. FACT: In 2000, President Bush pledged to eliminate the backlog of park maintenance projects and “restore and renew” America’s national parks. For example, President Bush said: "I will ensure that the federal government meets its responsibilities by devoting $5 billion to eliminate the backlog in maintenance and improvements at our national parks" (USA Today, 10/27/00). However, the Administration has actually targeted only $662 million in NEW funding for the backlog program over the past four years – not the $2.9 billion that they repeatedly claim to have spent. (White House Fact Sheet--- http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/08/20030815.html (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/08/20030815.html)). The $2.9 billion claim uses creative accounting and is a phony number. Deputy Park Service Director Donald Murphy admitted when he testified before Congress on July 8, 2003 that, as of that point one year ago, only "roughly $200 million to $300 million" of the $2.9 billion was new money above appropriations earmarked for annual maintenance. The rest of the $2.9 billion is simply for ongoing projects (e.g., road construction) and has nothing to do with the maintenance backlog. Candidate Bush in 2000 pointed to a leaky ceiling at the Gettysburg visitor center as a problem that needed to be fixed. That ceiling is still leaking today and is not slated to be fixed until 2009 (!) under the Administration’s neglect of the backlog problem.
Bush gang suppresses science to weaken Yellowstone protections:
http://democrats.reform.house.gov/features/politics_and_science/example_yellowstone.htm
Story about Letter to Bush from Park Officials
"The policies of President Bush and Interior Secretary Norton towards national parks are not based on science or sound conservation principles but purely on politics and favoring special interests."
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/archives/K/5/pub5898.html
Bush gang protects book in Grand Canyon Bookstore that says it was created by Noah's Flood (this one is freaking scary).
“Promoting creationism in our national parks is just as wrong as promoting it in our public schools,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, “If the Bush Administration is using public resources for pandering to Christian fundamentalists, it should at least have the decency to tell the truth about it.”
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/canyonflood.htm
123 ex-park employees give Bush gang an "F" on park management
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0825-07.htm
More Bush Gang religious meddlings in park science and managment
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Mar2004/berkowitz0304.html
Entire Bush record: Very good Read. Jack needs to read this one!
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/science/default.asp
SIGN THE PETITION LINKED IN FIRST POST PLEASE!
Blue Jay
10-18-2005, 07:05
Blue Jay, you sound almost religious. So what is the center of the universe? I think humanity's needs should take precedence over everything else. How exactly am I wrong? I'm glad the dinosaurs got creamed, because it made room for US and we're cooler.
I do not know what the center of the universe is. You don't have to be religious to know that humanity is not. Humans will cream themselves to make room for something like cockroaches who think that they are cooler. Even for a human you have a very inflated illusion of your own worth.
Blue Jay
10-18-2005, 07:12
Arguing about who has the worst environmental record, Democrats or Republicans, is like arguing which is better, being crushed by a rock or being crushed by a building.
Still haven't seen this addressed: Clinton signed this Roadless rule by executive order as he was heading out the door, right?
Teatime, check the record. The USDA Forest Service received more public comments on the Roadless Rules than any other issue - ever. The public was overwhelmingly in favor of them. More than 90% of the comments were in favor of the roadless Rules. Its not like Clinton signed this into law in the dark of night. There was a VERY public & transparent process for soliciting public input regarding OUR National Forests, and in my opinion, the people's will is currently being ignored.
Alligator
10-18-2005, 10:03
Teatime, check the record. The USDA Forest Service received more public comments on the Roadless Rules than any other issue - ever. The public was overwhelmingly in favor of them. More than 90% of the comments were in favor of the roadless Rules. Its not like Clinton signed this into law in the dark of night. There was a VERY public & transparent process for soliciting public input regarding OUR National Forests, and in my opinion, the people's will is currently being ignored.Actually, he did sign the executive order in the closing days of his administration. He was hesitant to turn public opinion against the Democratics while the 2000 election saga played out. If he had signed it earlier, it would be in effect today. After Bush took office, public comment was solicitated, with the above percentage of people in favor. It is an executive order also, which is not the same as a law passed by Congress. Many public lands were set aside by executive order though.
Thanks for the clarification Alligator. This is not an issue that I spent much time on in the course of running the Southern Appalachians Initiative. Here is a timeline - plucked from the USDA National Forest Roadless Rules website;
http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/m-05/04_26_05_roadless_rule_timeline.html
I do not know what the center of the universe is. You don't have to be religious to know that humanity is not. Humans will cream themselves to make room for something like cockroaches who think that they are cooler. Even for a human you have a very inflated illusion of your own worth.
Mathematically speaking, the center of the universe is wherever I happen to be standing (or wherever you are standing, whichever you prefer, each viewpoint is equally valid) My hope is that we take an active roll in controlling our destiny in the universe. First step, gaining control of our environment and managing it as best we can so that it can produce as much abundance as possible for our consumption. We've been doing that since the first farmer planted crops, or bred the first animal species for higher yield. I don't know why you find it so offensive. I don't know why you hold your own race in such low esteem, I prefer even you to cockroaches and dinosaurs for company, and I don't even know ya.
shades of blue
10-18-2005, 14:00
Since we are speaking "mathematically" I would like to see your proof that "we" you, me...are the center of the universe. That doesn't make a lot of since to me...albeit...I am a music teacher.
I don't think many people would argue that we need to figure out how to grow crops well, and to use our world wisely. I would argue and say that consumption isn't always best. For example...if we consume too much of our rainforests....how will we breathe...you know...pesky oxygen producing plants and trees. We can destroy this world, and not just with WMD. I may never go to Yellowstone (although I hope to go out west one day), but that doesn't mean that I don't have a vested interest in seeing that our western national parks aren't destroyed, or irrevocably changed from wilderness areas. It doesn't matter if T. Roosevelt was a republican or if F. Roosevelt was a democrat....both had huge impacts on our national forest lands.
I don't think humans are a plague on this planet...I think "earth first" is stupid. However, I do think that we, as a people must force our leaders to do "the right thing" toward our environment...if not, what will we have to give our children?
Since we are speaking "mathematically" I would like to see your proof that "we" you, me...are the center of the universe. That doesn't make a lot of since to me...albeit...I am a music teacher.
I don't think many people would argue that we need to figure out how to grow crops well, and to use our world wisely. I would argue and say that consumption isn't always best. For example...if we consume too much of our rainforests....how will we breathe...you know...pesky oxygen producing plants and trees. We can destroy this world, and not just with WMD. I may never go to Yellowstone (although I hope to go out west one day), but that doesn't mean that I don't have a vested interest in seeing that our western national parks aren't destroyed, or irrevocably changed from wilderness areas. It doesn't matter if T. Roosevelt was a republican or if F. Roosevelt was a democrat....both had huge impacts on our national forest lands.
I don't think humans are a plague on this planet...I think "earth first" is stupid. However, I do think that we, as a people must force our leaders to do "the right thing" toward our environment...if not, what will we have to give our children?
Well I agree with all that, so long as the needs of human beings come first. As far as being the center of the universe, I was just joking around a little bit, but most physicists agree that no matter where you are in the universe, and no matter which direction you look in or how powerful a telescope you use, the universe you observe will look about the same as from any other spot. As far as I am concerned my personal priorities, be they physical or philosophical, loom much larger than stuff going on in gaxaxies far far away, So in a psychological, evolutionary way (survive, reproduce, colonize other worlds, carve a galactic legacy in a manifest destiny sort of way...) I can't help but be the center of the universe, no one can. So, given that line of thinking, I was kind of taunting a little bit I admit, but so was he. Obviously with the kind of human populations we'll be experiencing over the next centuries will mean we have to meticulously engineer, maintan, and manage every "natural" resource with the highest level of technology. This will of necessity happen. Hopefully soylent green won't be people.
Tha Wookie
10-18-2005, 18:35
I have to commend everyone for good discussing here. Even though it strays a bit from the topic, I don't mind one bit, that's what a discussion is for.
Thanks for great input.
Blue Jay
10-18-2005, 18:42
Obviously with the kind of human populations we'll be experiencing over the next centuries will mean we have to meticulously engineer, maintan, and manage every "natural" resource with the highest level of technology. This will of necessity happen.
With the track record of humanity and almost every human thinking they are the center of the universe (metaphorically, which they clearly do) you actually think "this will of necessity happen". You are dreaming or hopelessly deluded. Humans are using everything as fast as possible. How do you exist without going near a road? Ever seen a Hummer? It is extremely rare for a single human to meticulously do anything, let alone a whole herd of them.
With the track record of humanity and almost every human thinking they are the center of the universe (metaphorically, which they clearly do) you actually think "this will of necessity happen". You are dreaming or hopelessly deluded. Humans are using everything as fast as possible. How do you exist without going near a road? Ever seen a Hummer? It is extremely rare for a single human to meticulously do anything, let alone a whole herd of them.
Hopefully this is just a transitional time, where invention just hasn't caught up with necessity yet. Clearly if technology and human innovation aren't enough to open up new ways to exploit resources and replenish them (genetic engineering, space exploration, fusion reactors, hydrogen fuel cells, whatever...) we're screwed. As I said before, my money is riding on humanity to accomplish whats necessary. I believe we kind of have to burn the candle at both ends while we try to achieve economic and technological development equal to the task. The ball is rolling downhill and getting bigger as far as population and consumption, there is no changing that fact, or stopping it, despite all the old fashioned anti-tech conservationism the hippies keep trying to promote. You'll just have to raise your low expectations of our species. After all we have come this far.
smokymtnsteve
10-18-2005, 19:27
we're screwed....no doubt about it...humanity is coming to an end.
but it doesn't matter,,,we are a christian nation and Jaysus is coming soon so why worry?
Blue Jay
10-18-2005, 19:44
You'll just have to raise your low expectations of our species. After all we have come this far.
The ability for a single pissed off human to combine Ebola and the common cold has only been around for a few years. Nuclear bombs could not be carried in suitcases until recently. The last time the polar ice caps melted we knew how to get our own food. If the extremely fragile food transportation systems fail for any reason, millions will starve. We are on the edge in soooo many areas. Most of the tech you quoted is extreme science
FICTION. :banana
It's clear we intend to keep pissing off the entire world. Sooner or later we'll piss off the wrong one.
Tha Wookie
10-18-2005, 22:21
It's clear we intend to keep pissing off the entire world. Sooner or later we'll piss off the wrong one.
I think the earth will sustain us ultimately, before consuming us before we become too much of a nusiance.
The question to me really is, when are we going to realize that we are children of the earth, and start to respect our mother?
It's not a matter or survival. It's a matter of decency and respect.
I am continually amazed at how many who claim to believe in creation continue to treat it with contentuous disregard.
Jack Tarlin
10-18-2005, 22:58
"Contentuous disregard"? Hmmm, that's a new one. Sounds serious!
Did he mean "contentious" or "contemptuous", maybe?
Hard to say.
I love Wookie's political sputterings, especially the more colorful, florid ones, but I really think he'd come across as a better writer if he used words that actually existed.
Alligator
10-18-2005, 23:01
He still spells better than MD:bse .
Whistler
10-18-2005, 23:08
With the track record of humanity and almost every human thinking they are the center of the universe (metaphorically, which they clearly do) you actually think "this will of necessity happen". You are dreaming or hopelessly deluded. Humans are using everything as fast as possible.
Blue Jay, humanity has an amazing track record. Can we still improve? Of course--to recognize that fact is human. But there is no question that we have made incomparable progress. As individuals, we live longer and healthier, die less, work less, get along better, and have more and better leisure than we've ever had. If you compare today to 20 years ago, or 100, or 500, or a couple thousand, what you see is a vast track record of individuals learning about their environment, creating resources to improve their own lives, and cooperating and working within their communities for mutual benefit. Humans aren't problems, we're problem solvers.
-Mark
Tha Wookie
10-18-2005, 23:09
"Contentuous disregard"? Hmmm, that's a new one. Sounds serious!
Did he mean "contentious" or "contemptuous", maybe?
Hard to say.
I love Wookie's political sputterings, especially the more colorful, florid ones, but I really think he'd come across as a better writer if he used words that actually existed.
Have you nothing better to add than a spelling check, your contemptuous arse puff?
Did you sign the petition?
saimyoji
10-18-2005, 23:09
Very interesting thread, something I spend some time thinking about. Basically, as I see it, man (in many different civilizations) has gone through many cycles of technology (how the hell did those Egyptians build those pyramids?). Technologies are achieved and lost as society changes (check out the dark ages). Now we live in a world very different from any other time in history: things that are done locally have a greater affect on the global whole. This is the result of the "its a small, small world" concept (see Disney: "Its a small world.") As transportation technology (boats, horses, cars, planes, space ships) advances, people move around more. This results in the clashing of ideas (sometimes good, usually destructive). As information technology (phones, radio, satelite communications, internet, etc.) advances, it reduces the requirement of transportation to bring ideas to clash. People can communicate over great distances and affect change from afar (check "action at a distance theory"). This change is often good in intent (Live Aid, We are the World, etc...) but also often ends in destruction. When enough destruction occurs, when enough people die, when society degrades into an intolerable state for the common masses, some leaders will step forward and lead the masses through a "reformation" and the cycle will begin again.
The only problem is that now, the world wil live in today, there are so many ways to destroy and so few ways to construct. We may very well be in for a "life as we know it" change. I'm talking about a survival situation here, not a "gas is too expensive so I have to buy the cheap baby formula" type of change. :eek:
Yes we are problem solvers. I think the simple fact is that mankind will find a way to continue to live on the earth for a long time (barring asteroid collision or global ice-age...even then I think some of us will survive). We do have the ability to change the earth to a large degree. LIFE will go on no matter what we do...but will it be a life worth living?
Did you sign the petition?
Yeah Jack, if not, why not?
Whistler
10-18-2005, 23:30
The ability for a single pissed off human to combine Ebola and the common cold has only been around for a few years. Nuclear bombs could not be carried in suitcases until recently. The last time the polar ice caps melted we knew how to get our own food. If the extremely fragile food transportation systems fail for any reason, millions will starve. We are on the edge in soooo many areas. Most of the tech you quoted is extreme science
FICTION. It's clear we intend to keep pissing off the entire world. Sooner or later we'll piss off the wrong one.-Your point about Ebola and the cold and nuclear bombs is...? I'd say the benefits of biotech and nuclear technology have very much been an improvement. Sure, once we invented fire, there was that one whack pyro caveman--but those are exceptions, not general trends in human nature.
-In what other areas are we "on the edge"?
-Why do you characterize the "food transportation systems" as fragile? I'd be glad to read any resources you could point me to..
-Mark
smokymtnsteve
10-18-2005, 23:35
Blue Jay, humanity has an amazing track record. Can we still improve? Of course--to recognize that fact is human. But there is no question that we have made incomparable progress. As individuals, we live longer and healthier, die less, work less, get along better, and have more and better leisure than we've ever had. If you compare today to 20 years ago, or 100, or 500, or a couple thousand, what you see is a vast track record of individuals learning about their environment, creating resources to improve their own lives, and cooperating and working within their communities for mutual benefit. Humans aren't problems, we're problem solvers.
-Mark
DIE LESS???..I don't think so...everybody still dies,,,as a matter of fact MORE
people die now than ever.
Whistler
10-18-2005, 23:45
Excellent point. That should be "die later." Although I wonder if it's not true anyway. Total deaths per day is probably higher as a simple function of increased population. But I wonder if "deaths per day per capita" is lower than in years past. Certainly room for speculation there.
-Mark
smokymtnsteve
10-18-2005, 23:48
Excellent point. That should be "die later." Although I wonder if it's not true anyway. Total deaths per day is probably higher as a simple function of increased population. But I wonder if "deaths per day per capita" is lower than in years past. Certainly room for speculation there.
-Mark
;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
Just Jeff
10-19-2005, 00:32
"Die less" could mean a lower infant mortality rate, or a lower mortality rate from simple illnesses like TB or infections. But both of those are reflected in the increased life span.
There's a million things to kill us, and we'll outthink and outbreed them all. We are the fittest.
The human race has achieved many great things and has also fallen on its face many times. However, when one looks at what man can achieve when inspired by his better inclinations it is amazing. Listen to the music of Bach, Teleman, Vivaldi, Mozart and Beethoven. Look at a painting by Monet, Manet or Van Gogh. Consider the works of Leonardo DaVinci or Michelangelo. Consider the holy lives of St. Francis of Asissi, St. Dominic, St. Thomas More, St. Therese of Lisieux and Blessed Teresa of Calucutta. Look into the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine and St. Bonaventure and John Paul II. See the scientific genius of Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton and Pythagorus. Then, hey, what about literature? The Holy Scriptures, The Illiad and the Oddesey, The Cantebury Tales, the works of Shakespeare, Keats, Milton, Hopkins, Dickens and Hardy. From our own history we have men like Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Lincoln, Lee, John Muir, Teddy Roosevelt, Marshall, Eisenhower and "the Band of Brothers". What about the kindness and charity of everyday people towards complete strangers who have endured things like, Katrina and the earthquakes in Pakistan.
Of course, on the other hand there are Hitler, Stalin, Musolini, Saddam, Osama Bin Laden and their breed. There are child molesters, murderers, thieves, rapists and other sick criminals in our midst.
We have many problems to overcome but I am optimistic. Jesus said, "In this world you will have trouble, but take heart, I have overcome the world".
I watched my 6-year old son make a stunning defensive play in his baseball game tonight. It was beautiful to watch the grace and speed of his movement and the accuracy of his throw to 1st base. It made the hair on the back of my neck stand up! He took a glancing line drive to his noggin later and although it hurt a little, he refused to leave the game and hit 3 for 3. He refused to quit or give up and gave his all, even though his team lost. He even took that in stride. Now, I hope I have helped foster this strength in him but sometimes I think I'm the one doing the learning. He teached me everyday. He gives me hope for the future.
bfitz wrote:
There's a million things to kill us, and we'll outthink and outbreed them all. We are the fittest.
Yeah, I'll bet the millions tortured and then slaughered in the name of religion during The Inquisitions wished they would have been born today. I wonder if the people around a thousand years from now will be glad they were born then and not now.
As a possible budding anarchist, I usually don't have much good to say about anything political.
I submit the following only to support the cause of balanced disgust.
Yeah, the Bush "gang" is certainly noone's particular cup o' tea but, a politician is a politician is a........
President Clinton's Roadless Area Conservation Policy
Fact or Fraud
By Denise Boggs, Executive Director
On January 12, 2001 President Clinton signed the Roadless Area Conservation Policy purported to protect approximately 58 million acres of National Forest lands from logging and road construction. Virtually every national environmental group in Washington, DC, with the notable exception of Save America’s Forests, hailed this policy with enthusiasm as a landmark decision; the greatest environmental achievement in the past 100 years; and compared Mr. Clinton’s environmental “legacy” to that of Teddy Roosevelt.
Let’s look at the facts. The following information was taken directly out of the Roadless Area Conservation Policy’s chosen alternative and Decision Summary and speaks for itself.
"Timber harvest objectives within inventoried roadless areas would focus on restoration of sustainable vegetation conditions, improving forest health, reducing excessive fuels and associated wildlands fire risk and intensity, reducing insect and disease conditions that are outside the natural range of vulnerability, and improving habitat for wildlife." It continues "Salvage, when used to accomplish one or more of the objectives under this alternative (preferred alternative), is likely to be used most often for excessive fuels reduction and insect and disease suppression."
Translated, this means the Forest Service can log inventoried roadless areas to “improve” forest health, prevent wildfires, reduce insect and disease conditions, and improve habitat for wildlife. EVERY single timber sale in an inventoried roadless area in Utah is developed for one of these reasons. So what has changed? Nothing. Logging in Utah’s roadless areas will continue unabated under the Roadless Area Conservation Policy. The Heritage Forest Campaigns claim that the “FEIS will prohibit "90% of roadless area logging across the nation” is simply not true.
Furthermore, the final rule contained a “modification” to the decision that will allow additional logging in inventoried roadless areas “where construction of a classified road and subsequent timber harvest have substantially altered the roadless characteristics.” Timber taken out of these areas may be sold for commercial use. In other words, if a roadless area has already been roaded and logged, instead of allowing the area to recover, it will be legal to continue to log it and sell the timber for commercial use. This also refutes the Heritage Forest Campaigns assertion that "commercial logging would be prohibited" in the Roadless Area Conservation Policy.
The public was also told that all road construction would be eliminated under the Roadless Conservation Policy. The final rule contained several “exceptions” that allow road construction and reconstruction for protection of public health and safety from threats of flood and fire, treatment to clean up hazardous pollution sites, and road realignment to prevent irreparable resource damage. In addition, another “modification” that will allow road construction in inventoried roadless was included in the Decision Summary. That modification is to allow road construction and reconstruction for mineral leasing (i.e. mining) in areas already leased for mineral development.
In addition, the Heritage Forest Campaign claimed the Tongass National Forest in Alaska would receive “full protection”. According to the final rule 852 million board feet of timber (almost the entire amount of timber taken off of all National Forests in the lower 48 states for one year) will be logged before it will receive any “protection”. This is to allow a transition period for the loggers and allow them seven years of continued logging.
Finally, the Forest Service failed to deal with the issues of grazing, motorized recreation, mining, or oil and gas exploration. All of these destructive activities are still permitted in inventoried roadless areas. The Roadless Conservation Policy also failed to address “unroaded” areas that were left out of the Forest Service’s inventoried roadless areas. These are the lands that groups such as the Utah Environmental Congress have been surveying the past few years. The UEC’s survey has already documented millions of roadless acres that should have been included in the Forest Service’s original inventory but were left out. These areas are often in better shape than some of the “inventoried” areas, provide critical habitat for wildlife, yet they will receive no protection under the conservation policy.
Other problems exist as well. By President Clinton’s own admission, the roadless policy takes only 5% out of the timber base, which means that 95% of the timber base is still on the chopping block. That means that many of us in the grassroots environmental community find ourselves right back where we started fighting the same timber sales in the same degraded watersheds in forest after forest across the United States. While these areas are not roadless, a conservation policy should not give carte blanche for the rest of the forests to be continually degraded. For this reason, ending commercial and salvage logging on all public lands becomes even more vital.
The sad truth about President Clinton’s roadless policy is not that it protects too much, but that it protects too little. Despite all the rhetoric of the media, western lawmakers and the beneficiaries of corporate welfare (logging, grazing and mining industries) the Roadless Area Conservation Policy doesn’t ban road building, provides numerous justifications for continued logging, and permits motorized recreation, mining, oil and gas drilling, grazing, and other practices that are inconsistent with the public’s perception that these roadless areas have been protected.
So why did the environmental community settle for this incredible loss while simultaneously hailing it as a major victory? The answer lies in the vast difference between local, grassroots environmental groups and big-money national organizations. Many of the large national environmental groups, while perhaps well intentioned, are obsessed with acquiring and retaining political power and influence. They fail to hold the line for genuine environmental protection for fear of alienating the real power brokers - politicians and corporate campaign contributors. The result is deal cutting, compromise, and the fettering away of the nation’s last wild places. Grassroots environmentalists are often labeled “extremists”, yet we are fighting for the last 2% of our native forests. The other 98% has already been logged. Who exactly is the extremist? And why are the national groups so quick to barter away that last 2%?
The distinction between the grassroots and nationals is critical to understanding why so little real environmental protection has occurred in the past 20 years, although the national organizations have raised billions of dollars in funding for that purpose. Many in the grassroots community believe the Roadless Area Conservation Policy was a ruse to help get Al Gore elected. And several of the people working on the Heritage Forest Campaign were counting on a job in a Gore Administration. Even Congressman Peter DeFazio D-OR stated: “I would say that forest policy… is too serious to be the theme of the day in some attempt to boost Gore’s flagging presidential campaign, which is what I think it’s all about.”
It is unthinkable that self-proclaimed environmental advocates would pander to politicians and big money at the expense of the environment, but that is exactly what happened with the Roadless Area Conservation Policy. According to the Republican polling firm American Viewpoint, most Americans want to ban all logging, mining, off-road vehicle use and other destructive activities from unspoiled areas in our National Forests. American Viewpoint found 76% of voters nationally favor that goal, with only 19% opposed. That poll found support held across geographic regions with 80% support in the East; 73% in the South; 78% in the Midwest; and 72% in the West. Support also held across gender with 78% of women and 73% of men in support as well as 86% Democrats, 78% Independents, and 62% of Republicans in support.
What the national organizations settled for is not what many of the grassroots groups or the American people asked for. There is simply no excuse for what happened and the environment - the trees, water, soil, wildlife, fish, birds, bugs, toads, snakes, mushrooms, flowers - and we the people - the owners of our public land - will all suffer the consequences of being sold out. And the very sad truth is that our roadless areas have not received any permanent protection from the Roadless Area Conservation Policy.
The Heritage Forest Campaign was a failure that left grassroots forest activists worse off than before. Frankly, our work has become more difficult under the conservation policy because it gives the Forest Service carte blanche to enter roadless areas under all of the “exceptions” and “modifications” included in it, and the public has the perception that roadless areas have been protected. It is a great disservice to us all to declare victory where none exists. There is a monumental difference between a paper victory that will allow untold environmental degradation to continue, and a substantive victory that protects the integrity of the land and the life contained therein. We at the Utah Environmental Congress believe we are representing the views of the majority of Americans who have called for ending commercial logging and livestock grazing on all public lands. We will continue to aggressively challenge all activities on Utah’s National Forests that destroy the environment, and to seek permanent protection for our remaining roadless areas. From the very beginning, the UEC has provided a voice for the voiceless - the animals and plants that can’t speak for themselves - the American people, and Utah’s citizens, who refuse to compromise away the few precious remnants of wildness that still remain.
Rain Man
10-19-2005, 10:32
Jesus said, "In this world you will have trouble, but take heart, I have overcome the world". ....
I watched my 6-year old son ... He gives me hope for the future.
Jesus also had very harsh things to say about folks who focused on greed and building riches instead of on being self-less and loving towards humanity. Not saying you're like the first!
I wonder why "conservatives" think it's fine to love little children on the one hand (or claim to themselves that they do), then go out and hide behind politics and corporations to avoid personal responsibility when they pollute the world those same children will inherit. Being the liberal he was, I don't think it'd confuse Jesus, who preached some of his most vociferous sermons against hypocrites. Ruining the world we'll leave to those precious children is un-Christian in my book.
Rain Man
.
Jesus also had very harsh things to say about folks who focused on greed and building riches instead of on being self-less and loving towards humanity. Not saying you're like the first!
I wonder why "conservatives" think it's fine to love little children on the one hand (or claim to themselves that they do), then go out and hide behind politics and corporations to avoid personal responsibility when they pollute the world those same children will inherit. Being the liberal he was, I don't think it'd confuse Jesus, who preached some of his most vociferous sermons against hypocrites. Ruining the world we'll leave to those precious children is un-Christian in my book.
Yes, it's true, of course "conservatives" are really an evil corporate illuminati, bent on destroying the world and plundering its riches. Everything built by indiustry is a part of this plot and in a few generations they will all be laughing from their secret base on the moon at the poor saps living on the crap-hole earth has become. Blah blah blah...can't you "liberals" have a decent argument based on a consistent philosophy and facts rather than just outrageous accusations about how they don't really love their children if they support some kind of "polluting" industry that you in your wisdom have decided is evil despite the many people whose livlihoods (and their childrens livlihoods) would be lost if development didn't continue. Oh Yeah I forgot, we can put em on welfare, or better yet, just starve em out with draconian green laws that don't allow them to use any beneficial tech in growing food so that we can kill off enough of our population that our lovely mother earth wont have to be irritated by our presence. Or is there truly a logical step by step progression of "liberal" philosophy that provides for the many billions of us, while preventing any ecological change from marring the earths grandeur? Of course, in 4.5 billion years, ecological change has progressed on its own in ways far more dramatic than anything that is happening now.
Of course back then there weren't any "liberals" to jump up and down and scream about it, while spewing irrational arguments about conservatives being to blame...By the way, if you want to talk about hypocrisy, do you drive? Use plastic? Buy any of the products produced by the industries you so despise? Electrical power? If you could choose to go live in the middle ages (when the europeans comletely deforested europe's old growth forests?) or farther back, say during the ice age would you? Which era of man would you prefer to have been born in? Or would you prefer to just have never been born at all?
shades of blue
10-19-2005, 11:31
No, not all corporations are evil...my brother owns his own transporting business in NC, and he works hard to make sure his employees have good health care and other necessities. However, to say that most corporations are like this is a falicy. Maybe smaller businesses are ...I don't know....but something happens when a company gets so large that it looses touch with the human side of the equation. Profit rules and to hell with everything else. Do you know why gas is so high? Other than being gouged by greedy corporations who make huge profits in time of national crisis (think halliburton's charging the army an enormous price for oil in Iraq and that was documented by the way)...it's because we have so few refineries (or so they say). We have so few refineries because the oil companies don't want to build new ones under newer technology which would create much less polution. Now, the gov't is trying to pass an energy law allowing the refineries to be rebuilt (one's in gulf coast) using OLD technology which is a pollution making machine. We have the technology..but refuse to use it because it's too expensive. Yet, these companies like Exxon can make 18 billion dollars of profit in a quarter, get corporate welfare from Bush and his Merry men, AND make more of a profit by building old technological refineries, which are cheaper for them. Do you think WE will get a decrease in gas prices, natural gas, heating oil? Dream on.
Yes, I am a liberal, but I'm not an idiot.
(think halliburton's charging the army an enormous price for oil in Iraq and that was documented by the way)...
Just cuz it's "documented" doesn't mean its understood properly, or true. One thing I know, these contracts often inflate costs of "approved" activities under the contract because on the battlefield you can't re-negotiate the terms of the contract so that supplies can move where they weren't originally supposed to go. When Colonel so and so says get this much gas to such and such a place, and thats not in the contract, they still do what he asks. In many contracts, this is reasonable considering the fact that from day to day the client's needs change. Considering they were doing a lot more than just dropping off the gas and going home the costs of those extra and largely undocumented services provided on the spot by personnel, the cost per gallon that you are refferring to was probably too low. Remember that they spin numbers, so look closely at them. If some crime had been uncovered by the documenters you talked about...even the slightest shred of evidence of a possible crime, H-burton would be in court right now and out of Iraq. As far as the price of oil being inflated, the europeans have been paying big dollars for gas for years, mabye the REAL price of gas is just catching up to us? Mabye if the foreign oil monopolies weren't trying to eat us up we'd be able to break the monopolies in our country? I dunno.
You really have to hand it Matthew, Mark, Luke, John etc. Before Jesus, gods were only a figment of one's imagination, right? Except during an epilectic fit, nobody ever met Venius.
My guess is, some very smart Jews put the whole thing together. "We'll have a God in the flesh for the first time." Since there was no instant news, pictures, eye whitness acounts, etc, he could only be kept around long to be "sacrificed" to perpetuate the claim. The only way for the church to stay in power was The Great Threat, "you gotta believe or you'll burn in hell." If Jesus, was left around, it would soon become evident that he really couldn't perform miracles. If I'm not mistaken, only two women claimed to have whitnessed his resurrection.
You know, it's easy for Americans to believe and be thankful. We've got soo much. But thankful to whom or what??? maybe to Jefferson for the system...to our parents...to Teddy Roosevelt. I have to ask myself what can I thank Bush for...cutting short the lives of beautiful young people for the sake of power? I don't know...I just don't know. I know that if God gets credit for all the good stuff he created he can't blame all the ***** on me. (On second thought I guess he can since he's God)
Will someone explain this trinity thing to me...what happened to the original God when Jesus became the Lord and took over?
On the news, I have seen many people interviewed that said their lives or the lives of love ones were saved when they prayed to God. My guess is when a 3 year old kid gets cancer, 99% of the parents get religion.
I've asked before, if God is GOD, why does he demand to be worshiped...you know what I believe...I believe Chrisitanity is a business bigger than all the corporations in America put together.
BTW, how come you never hear how much money the Vatican has taken out of its coffers to rescue people during disasters...Isn't that their job...at least part of their responsbility.
Okay, I'm not as bitter as I may sound...I just don't like being lied to...and if God didn't give people an a$$hole you couldn't call me one.
shadesofblue68 wrote:
We have so few refineries because the oil companies don't want to build new ones under newer technology which would create much less polution. Now, the gov't is trying to pass an energy law allowing the refineries to be rebuilt (one's in gulf coast) using OLD technology which is a pollution making machine. We have the technology..but refuse to use it because it's too expensive.
Yeah and I ain't buyin into this "the'yre too expensive to build" crap. Right now, if it's true, the oil companies are skimming an extra 50 cents a gallon in profits. Any business, and especially one that sells such an essential product, can pass building cost along to the consumer ver a long period of time...protecting the environment is not "cost prohibitive." They want you to believe they can't so they have excuses to build refineries in Mexico where they can pollute.
Having said that, I will defend their right to make as much as the market will allow...but they can't kill the environment doing it.
Footslogger
10-19-2005, 13:04
Okay, I'm not as bitter as I may sound...I just don't like being lied to...and if God didn't give people an a$$hole you couldn't call me one.================================
I think I know now why we tend to see eye to eye Skeemer ...
'Slogger
shades of blue
10-19-2005, 14:10
Halliburton was investigated by the dept. of defense for much more than just a little over the top to cover bills. Get real man. I also thought capitalism was supposed to be free market and competition. Halliburton and MANY others have gotten no bid contracts, then made a killing on profits by over charging. How do you self correct corporations if they don't have to compete? The consumer has absolutely no control then. Subsidiaries of Halliburton has also been accused of price gouging in their no bid contracts in the gulf coast.
I know gov't bidding doesn't always produce the best results (I am a teacher, and see that in state contracts) however, to just assign a group without bidding at all allows them to "name their price" when other companies might do just as good of a job for less. At the very least, if Halliburton and the like are the best in the business, they would be forced to lower their prices to reasonable, fair amounts. This corprate welfare is being paid with tax dollars...I thought conservatives wanted to tax less, and use tax money wisely? Ummmmm....
smokymtnsteve
10-19-2005, 15:27
Having said that, I will defend their right to make as much as the market will allow...but they can't kill the environment doing it.
sure they can..they do everyday!
Blue Jay
10-19-2005, 17:15
Yes, it's true, of course "conservatives" are really an evil corporate illuminati, bent on destroying the world and plundering its riches. Everything built by indiustry is a part of this plot and in a few generations they will all be laughing from their secret base on the moon at the poor saps living on the crap-hole earth has become. Blah blah blah...can't you "liberals" have a decent argument based on a consistent philosophy and facts rather than just outrageous accusations about how they don't really love their children if they support some kind of "polluting" industry that you in your wisdom have decided is evil despite the many people whose livlihoods (and their childrens livlihoods) would be lost if development didn't continue.
Get this through your head, this is not a conservative vs Liberal issue. Both sides love plundering, cons for weapons and sexual abstention education, libs for bureaucrats and fake "education". You either set responsible environmental laws and enforce them or you don't. We choose death. Now we are in the looting stage, a massive resource grab, till the game ends.
'Slogger wrote:
I think I know now why we tend to see eye to eye Skeemer ...
...you're on thin ice...it's not the smartest thing these days to say you agree with me.
You know how posters often have a few words as part of their signature...like SMS's rather killing a man than a snake. I've been thinking about putting that sentance with my signature...what do you think? "If God hadn't given us all a$$holes you couldn't call me one."
BTW, our closest friends packed up and moved to Cody...where they want to spend the rest of their life.
Tha Wookie
10-19-2005, 18:31
Jesus also had very harsh things to say about folks who focused on greed and building riches instead of on being self-less and loving towards humanity. Not saying you're like the first!
I wonder why "conservatives" think it's fine to love little children on the one hand (or claim to themselves that they do), then go out and hide behind politics and corporations to avoid personal responsibility when they pollute the world those same children will inherit. Being the liberal he was, I don't think it'd confuse Jesus, who preached some of his most vociferous sermons against hypocrites. Ruining the world we'll leave to those precious children is un-Christian in my book.
Rain Man
.
That is a great thing you just said.
Forgiveness is better remembered than compassion.
Footslogger
10-19-2005, 18:40
[QUOTE=Skeemer]...you're on thin ice...it's not the smartest thing these days to say you agree with me.
======================================
Dude ...I was born on thin ice. B'sides your words struck a chord with me. I'll take whatever flack comes with it.
'Slogger
Footslogger
10-19-2005, 18:41
[QUOTE=Skeemer
BTW, our closest friends packed up and moved to Cody...where they want to spend the rest of their life.[/QUOTE]================================
Very enlightened people your friends are !! Course I'd take Laramie over Cody any day.
'Slogger
Alligator
10-19-2005, 19:04
...you're on thin ice...it's not the smartest thing these days to say you agree with me.
You know how posters often have a few words as part of their signature...like SMS's rather killing a man than a snake. I've been thinking about putting that sentance with my signature...what do you think? "If God hadn't given us all a$$holes you couldn't call me one."
BTW, our closest friends packed up and moved to Cody...where they want to spend the rest of their life.No need for the $$:jump .
Whistler
10-20-2005, 01:50
Yeah and I ain't buyin into this "the'yre too expensive to build" crap. Right now, if it's true, the oil companies are skimming an extra 50 cents a gallon in profits.If you would like to speak of profits, just be aware that our various levels of governments make far more income from gasoline sales than any oil corporation does. Also, oil profits are far below other private industries. Banking, biotech, software, finance, etc. all make much better returns.
-Mark
Whistler
10-20-2005, 02:07
Get this through your head, this is not a conservative vs Liberal issue. Both sides love plundering, cons for weapons and sexual abstention education, libs for bureaucrats and fake "education". You either set responsible environmental laws and enforce them or you don't. We choose death. Now we are in the looting stage, a massive resource grab, till the game ends.Good points, Blue Jay. Like you mentioned, I don't see it as a conservative v. liberal issue. I think where we disagree is the category of "responsible environmental laws." I think strong systems of private property will do more to create and sustain a conservation ethic than a system of public lands. The benefit is that private owners seek to improve their property and maintain it for long-term value. And I don't think we should conflate 'private' with 'corporate.' Non-profits and community groups can also have private property for nature's sake, and they do excellent work to take care of it.
I'm also not a big fan of the phrase "massive resource grab." Resources aren't just 'out there' waiting on us to claim them; resources are created by humans.
As I see it, it's not liberal v. conservative--it's government or you & I, regulation or freedom, socialism or capitalism, compulsion or cooperation.
Etc.
-Mark
What ignorant, uniformed garbage. This not based on fact and is a flat out lie. The number of capital sentances carried out during the the several inquisitions were only a few thousand over several centuries.
There have actually been several different inquisitions. The first was established in 1184 in southern France as a response to the Catharist heresy. This was known as the Medieval Inquisition, and it was phased out as Catharism disappeared.
Quite separate was the Roman Inquisition, begun in 1542. It was the least active and most benign of the three variations.
Separate again was the infamous Spanish Inquisition, started in 1478, a state institution used to identify conversos—Jews and Moors (Muslims) who pretended to convert to Christianity for purposes of political or social advantage and secretly practiced their former religion. More importantly, its job was also to clear the good names of many people who were falsely accused of being heretics. It was the Spanish Inquisition that, at least in the popular imagination, had the worst record of fulfilling these duties.
The various inquisitions stretched through the better part of a millennia, and can collectively be called "the Inquisition."
Inquisitions did not exist in Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, or England, being confined mainly to southern France, Italy, Spain, and a few parts of the Holy Roman Empire.
Furthermore, the plague, which killed a third of Europe’s population, is credited by historians with major changes in the social structure. The Inquisition is credited with few—precisely because the number of its victims was comparitively small. In fact, recent studies indicate that at most there were only a few thousand capital sentences carried out for heresy in Spain, and these were over the course of several centuries.
Yeah, I'll bet the millions tortured and then slaughered in the name of religion during The Inquisitions wished they would have been born today. I wonder if the people around a thousand years from now will be glad they were born then and not now.
Boy, are you naive if you think only "conservatives" are supposedly guilty of such things. I'm sure liberal's polute as much as conservatives. I'm afraid you are mistaken about Jesus being a liberal. He was not political and made it a point to avoid politics. When challenged by those who wanted to trap him into making statements against Rome, he said render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's. He also said that the Pharisees sat in Moses seat and that obedience to their teaching was required. Doesn't sound like a liberal to me.
Jesus also had very harsh things to say about folks who focused on greed and building riches instead of on being self-less and loving towards humanity. Not saying you're like the first!
I wonder why "conservatives" think it's fine to love little children on the one hand (or claim to themselves that they do), then go out and hide behind politics and corporations to avoid personal responsibility when they pollute the world those same children will inherit. Being the liberal he was, I don't think it'd confuse Jesus, who preached some of his most vociferous sermons against hypocrites. Ruining the world we'll leave to those precious children is un-Christian in my book.
Rain Man
.
justusryans
10-20-2005, 07:59
What ignorant, uniformed garbage. This not based on fact and is a flat out lie. The number of capital sentances carried out during the the several inquisitions were only a few thousand over several centuries.
There have actually been several different inquisitions. The first was established in 1184 in southern France as a response to the Catharist heresy. This was known as the Medieval Inquisition, and it was phased out as Catharism disappeared.
Quite separate was the Roman Inquisition, begun in 1542. It was the least active and most benign of the three variations.
Separate again was the infamous Spanish Inquisition, started in 1478, a state institution used to identify conversos—Jews and Moors (Muslims) who pretended to convert to Christianity for purposes of political or social advantage and secretly practiced their former religion. More importantly, its job was also to clear the good names of many people who were falsely accused of being heretics. It was the Spanish Inquisition that, at least in the popular imagination, had the worst record of fulfilling these duties.
The various inquisitions stretched through the better part of a millennia, and can collectively be called "the Inquisition."
Inquisitions did not exist in Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, or England, being confined mainly to southern France, Italy, Spain, and a few parts of the Holy Roman Empire.
Furthermore, the plague, which killed a third of Europe’s population, is credited by historians with major changes in the social structure. The Inquisition is credited with few—precisely because the number of its victims was comparitively small. In fact, recent studies indicate that at most there were only a few thousand capital sentences carried out for heresy in Spain, and these were over the course of several centuries.
Forgot about the Crusades? While not exactly an Inquisition, they were certainly religiously motivated, at least on the surface. The Crusades certainly did kill millions.:D
shades of blue
10-20-2005, 08:03
Jesus wasn't politcal...I will agree with that. However, let's look at His actions....feed the poor, heal the sick, take care of societies outcasts....Thou shalt not kill.... ect... He even made Peter put down his sword during His capture....
Sure sounds liberal to me. I don't see Moses (charleston Heston) putting down his gun, or many repubs feeding the poor. Jesus would make even the dems pretty nervous about their social out reach. The people of His time felt uncomfortable enough with His teachings to kill him. And yeah...the dems wouldn't be happy on what Christ would say about abortion either. Neither political group has the handle on Christianity...although to hear the current Republicans talk, they walk hand in hand with Jesus every day. I think what Rainman and others are saying....Christ was a lot more about taking care of the weak, poor, and needy, than bashing them in the head for their lack of morals. Dems at least SAY to take care of the least among us in our society...even the environment. How many repubs do you see preaching that?
justusryans
10-20-2005, 08:22
The current crop of Republicans have a Me First attitude. Noone else is important. They should be left alone to hoard their money, after all that's what is most important to them. After all they have the moral highroad. Just ask them, they'll tell you!!
Teatime responded:
The number of capital sentances carried out during the the several inquisitions were only a few thousand over several centuries.
Not according to The History Channel.
Anyway, I understand and respect your right to an opinon. You seem to have a pretty good grasp on events and dates. Any details on when priests (Christians) started molesting little boys? Probably not Jesus since The Divinci Code suggests him having an affair with Mary and resulting in a daughter, Sarah. (I know...it's just fiction :p)
You do have to thank the Conservatives and Bush for being there to try and make sure we live our lives according to the Good Book. They like to save souls but don't seem to give a damn saving anything else...like the earth...money...lives (eg Iraq), etc.
Just Jeff
10-20-2005, 09:51
Furthermore, the plague, which killed a third of Europe’s population, is credited by historians with major changes in the social structure. The Inquisition is credited with few—precisely because the number of its victims was comparitively small.Wow - comparing religion with the Plague isn't exactly a firm foundation for your argument...
Didn't we already have a God thread?
Here's a question - Do you think the Dems support the environment because they think it's right? Or because it gets them votes? If the votes went away, they'd drop the issue quicker than a lawsuit against the Kennedys.
At an individual level, it's not about conservatives and liberals. But at the party level, Dems tend to take on more environmental issues. That said, the NRA supports many conservation issues, and they're staunchly conservative. They need pristine lands so they have places to hunt.
Cookerhiker
10-20-2005, 10:14
Wow - comparing religion with the Plague isn't exactly a firm foundation for your argument...
Didn't we already have a God thread?
Here's a question - Do you think the Dems support the environment because they think it's right? Or because it gets them votes? If the votes went away, they'd drop the issue quicker than a lawsuit against the Kennedys.
At an individual level, it's not about conservatives and liberals. But at the party level, Dems tend to take on more environmental issues. That said, the NRA supports many conservation issues, and they're staunchly conservative. They need pristine lands so they have places to hunt.You've made some good points Jeff. Until Reagan's election, the politics behind the environment was largely bipartisan with champions and villains in both parties. Legislation like the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Wilderness Act, Superfund, and - closer to home - the 1968 and 1978 Trails acts enjoyed bipartisan support. Since then, there's no question in my mind that the Republicans are decidedly hostile to the very concept of environmental protection and conservation. Within a year after taking control of Congress, the Gingrich-led Republicans forced the federal shutdown by inserting riders into the appropriations bills preventing EPA from enforcing all environmental laws. They thought they could use an underhanded approach like this as opposed to debating issues in the open with hearings, etc. but it backfired on them.
So the environment as an issue fell into the Democrat's lap - I'm not sure they deserve it. One example: Clinton's environmental record as governor was at best negligent. Yes, there are a few Democratic stalwarts for the environment but the party has not made it as large an issue as they could. As for the dwindling band of Republicans who still care about preserving the environment, their inflence is nil at the national level and they draw primary opponents funded by the Club for Growth and other anti-environment special interests. In Maryland's 1st Congressional District, Rep. Gilchrest (no ADA-type liberal) was challenged by a primary opponent who openly attacked Gilchrest for his interest in protecting the Chesapeake Bay instead of working to cut regulations and taxes. Fortunately, Gilchrest prevailed.
And your last point is right on - there are probably more issues which unite hunters and enviros than divide them, especially the need for open space. Yes, the two interests have different motives but with dialog, the potential to craft an agreement on public policy to fight the ravages of sprawl is certainly there.
Spartan Hiker
10-20-2005, 10:16
Wow - comparing religion with the Plague isn't exactly a firm foundation for your argument...
Didn't we already have a God thread?
Here's a question - Do you think the Dems support the environment because they think it's right? Or because it gets them votes? If the votes went away, they'd drop the issue quicker than a lawsuit against the Kennedys.
At an individual level, it's not about conservatives and liberals. But at the party level, Dems tend to take on more environmental issues. That said, the NRA supports many conservation issues, and they're staunchly conservative. They need pristine lands so they have places to hunt.Finally, some sanity...
Alligator
10-20-2005, 11:26
...The benefit is that private owners seek to improve their property and maintain it for long-term value. And I don't think we should conflate 'private' with 'corporate.' Non-profits and community groups can also have private property for nature's sake, and they do excellent work to take care of it.
Have you ever heard of the term "cut and run" in regards to forestry? Mining has a long tradition of being resistant to restoring the land. That's not to even say they are interested in "improving" it. Many private owners are only interested in getting maximum return from their land, taking that which they want and moving on.
Whistler
10-20-2005, 12:34
Yes, I have heard of 'cut and run' with regards to forestry. It's sad, no doubt. But an enormous amount of that kind of forestry is allowed by our governments on "public land." Truly sad. The issue is the lack of responsibility--on the part of the permissive bureaucrats, who only plan for the next election, and the profiteers, who can't be held responsible. A key problem is the unwillingness of government to enforce basic trespass laws and private property rights--which I submit should include water, airspace, etc.
Weak enforcement and general ambivalence to private property rights is the issue. I think a lot of this happens on the local level as well, with so much involvement in "development." See: zoning, loans, tax incentives, etc.
Let's not forget other ways that government distorts markets: how about lumber and mineral tariffs on imports? Making the price of imported materials higher than free-market value creates artificial incentives for Americans to continue logging and mining, when we could be using that human labor, skills, and resources elsewhere.
A big problem I have with environmentalism is the unwillingness [or maybe inability is more accurate] to put money where the mouth is: buy land and preserve it--don't force others to do it for you. And a key barrier to this is government intervention--distortionary and inconsistent policy that actively encourages development, rent-seeking, etc., and that discourages private ownership thru weak enforcement of property rights, burdensome tax schemes, & general meddling. The other barrier is environmentalists' insistence on central planning.
-Mark
Halliburton was investigated by the dept. of defense for much more than just a little over the top to cover bills. Get real man…. This corprate welfare is being paid with tax dollars...I thought conservatives wanted to tax less, and use tax money wisely? Ummmmm....
They were investigated, but no one got fired (as far as I know…I admit I don’t really know the details of the investigations…anyhow H-burton still has the job so whatever). In matters of national security, maybe they just like to have the company that’s got a history of working with them. Choosing some cheaper bid with no track record seems like a big gamble to me.
Get this through your head, this is not a conservative vs Liberal issue. Both sides love plundering, cons for weapons and sexual abstention education, libs for bureaucrats and fake "education". You either set responsible environmental laws and enforce them or you don't. We choose death. Now we are in the looting stage, a massive resource grab, till the game ends.
While that is one of your most intelligent posts, I still disagree with most of it. As whistler pointed out we are our own greatest resource. You are far too cynical and negative, your arguments always fail because of this fact.
That is a great thing you just said.
Forgiveness is better remembered than compassion.
I suppose that forgiveness and compassion can be separated, but I don’t even see what you mean, and what he said was pretty stupid.
I'm also not a big fan of the phrase "massive resource grab." Resources aren't just 'out there' waiting on us to claim them; resources are created by humans.
Exactly.
Thou shalt not kill.... ect... He even made Peter put down his sword during His capture....
That's cuz he knew that those legionairres would've cut peter down where he stood.
The current crop of Republicans have a Me First attitude. Noone else is important. They should be left alone to hoard their money, after all that's what is most important to them. After all they have the moral highroad. Just ask them, they'll tell you!!
You guys usually come across as far less prejudiced.
Here's a question - Do you think the Dems support the environment because they think it's right? Or because it gets them votes? If the votes went away, they'd drop the issue quicker than a lawsuit against the Kennedys.
Damned straight. That’s why they go with United Nations-style science, the issues are so clouded and politicized, the science so contradictory, I don’t see how a rational debate on this issue is even possible, not that we don’t do a good job of it considering…
At an individual level, it's not about conservatives and liberals. But at the party level, Dems tend to take on more environmental issues. That said, the NRA supports many conservation issues, and they're staunchly conservative. They need pristine lands so they have places to hunt.
Everyone needs and appreciates pristine lands. If they say they don’t they’re just being stubborn idiots.
Again, I repeat my question from post 189 …”Or is there truly a logical step by step progression of "liberal" philosophy that provides for the many billions of us, while preventing any ecological change…? ….Of course, in 4.5 billion years, ecological change has progressed on its own in ways far more dramatic than anything that is happening now.”
Alligator
10-20-2005, 21:15
Yes, I have heard of 'cut and run' with regards to forestry. It's sad, no doubt. But an enormous amount of that kind of forestry is allowed by our governments on "public land." Truly sad. The issue is the lack of responsibility--on the part of the permissive bureaucrats, who only plan for the next election, and the profiteers, who can't be held responsible. A key problem is the unwillingness of government to enforce basic trespass laws and private property rights--which I submit should include water, airspace, etc.
Weak enforcement and general ambivalence to private property rights is the issue. I think a lot of this happens on the local level as well, with so much involvement in "development." See: zoning, loans, tax incentives, etc.Do you want strong enforcement or more private property rights? This is far from complementary. However, if seeing the forests cut is sad, please sign the roadless petition:sun .
I am not saying that private owners are all bad, but these statements
I think strong systems of private property will do more to create and sustain a conservation ethic than a system of public lands. The benefit is that private owners seek to improve their property and maintain it for long-term value. fail to acknowledge the very LONG history of damage inflicted on the land by private owners. It was overcutting, overgrazing, overfarming, sloppy mining, and general environmental degradation that created the outcry for national forests, farming and range regulations, mining rules, and other environmental laws. These were reactions to problems, problems created by private property owners.
Let's not forget other ways that government distorts markets: how about lumber and mineral tariffs on imports? Making the price of imported materials higher than free-market value creates artificial incentives for Americans to continue logging and mining, when we could be using that human labor, skills, and resources elsewhere.Imposition of tariffs can be for good or bad reasons. You have made the assumption that these tariffs are making the price higher than free market value. Tariffs may be bringing the cost of the item to where it should be. The argument about mining and logging is therefore artificially one-sided.
A big problem I have with environmentalism is the unwillingness [or maybe inability is more accurate] to put money where the mouth is: buy land and preserve it--don't force others to do it for you. And a key barrier to this is government intervention--distortionary and inconsistent policy that actively encourages development, rent-seeking, etc., and that discourages private ownership thru weak enforcement of property rights, burdensome tax schemes, & general meddling. The other barrier is environmentalists' insistence on central planning.
-MarkThis paragraph is incoherent. Let's break it down. You have two problems.
1. You perceive environmentalists as unwilling to buy and preserve land.
2. You feel like environmentalists force others to do it for them.
A key barrier is government intervention [to this, meaning to these problems?]
Another barrier is insistence on central planning.
The two barriers do not prevent either 1 or 2. The two "barriers" facilitate it.
Environmentalists have a long history of buying lands and preserving them. Two great examples are Percival Baxter and our own Weary. Both donated money from their own pockets to protect land and they both encouraged the government to do the same. Since both paid taxes, it is their right to petition the government to use those taxes in a manner to their liking. And, Weary's efforts continue.
See www.matlt.org (http://www.matlt.org/). LOL, a free plug for you Weary.
bfitz wrote re Haliburton:
In matters of national security, maybe they just like to have the company that’s got a history of working with them.
It could be any number of reasons...the press and liberals just love to demonize big business and I'll never understand why. Give em credit for having something to do with our quality of life. The drug companies too...they've just made a breakthrough in a drug for breast cancer and guess what paid for the research?...maybe some of it was profits from sales of other drugs that helped people live longer or suffer less...money left over after fighting lawsuits. People can be such hypocrites, why don't they come out and say what they really want is a socialism.
Having said that, greedy people are everywhere....big corporations, unions, lawyers, the Catholic church, they're everywhere. We need laws that protect the environment from greedy people and a government that will enforce these laws. Environmental laws are too easy to ignore...it takes time for global warming, smog, etc to kill you so some say, "what the hell, I'll be dead before it matters to me."
I thought Bush's positives outweighed his negatives and I was wrong. He is far too political...maybe to the point of being dishonest which could come back to bite him in the ass.
I hope I don't come across as a "know it all" in these discussions...its just one persons take...Anyway, you idiots, sign the petition!
Rain Man
10-20-2005, 21:58
Here's a question - Do you think the Dems support the environment because they think it's right? Or because it gets them votes? If the votes went away, they'd drop the issue quicker than a lawsuit against the Kennedys.
Like the question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?", your premise is totally bogus.
The Dems have lost the last two presidential elections (or had one stolen, according to how you look at it) and control of both houses of Congress and many governorships and state houses, all while sticking to their guns on protecting the environment more than the Repubs.
So, I guess your premis is bogus as a three dollar bill from my perspective. I'd say they have stuck to the issue with honor, even while losing votes to the Repubs and faux-conservatives.
Rain:sunMan
.
So, I guess your premis is bogus as a three dollar bill from my perspective. I'd say they have stuck to the issue with honor, even while losing votes to the Repubs and faux-conservatives.
The premise is perfectly valid. The dems have lost votes because they have pandered to so many groups in this fashion that even the base is starting to notice.
shades of blue
10-20-2005, 22:21
Cheney was the former CEO of Halliburton ...wasn't he? Of course the Gov't would rather go with who they know....the good ol buddy system is great for the company...not so great for the consumer. I read that one company was charging around 2K more than it would cost to build a NEW roof to put blue plastic tarps (the kind that was on a shelter in the smokys) in the gulf coast. This was another no bid contract. I think it was a subsidary of Halliburton...but not 100% on that. The people even admitted it, but what can you do?
You may say...hey, free market...but WE are paying this company to do temporary work for 2k more than permenant work. I bet you could find a slew of companies that would do the temp work for a lot less. Why should the company do it for less unless the gov't demand it and put competition in there.
As for Halliburton still having the contracts in Iraq and Kuwait.....you don't bitch slap the vice prez's company if you want to keep YOUR job....that's how the good ol boy network works. Now....is that really conservative handling of money? I might actually vote for a conservative, if one really existed........
Blue Jay
10-20-2005, 23:06
While that is one of your most intelligent posts, I still disagree with most of it. As whistler pointed out we are our own greatest resource. You are far too cynical and negative, your arguments always fail because of this fact.
Since you fired the first shot...I am a realist, you are the Pollyanna. You truly believe your techno geeks are going to solve problems, such as global warming? Have you read their proposals. Giant CO2 scrubbers and filters, again you are into science fiction. You even believe that there are conservatives. Admit it, you wait for the Easter Bunny every spring.
smokymtnsteve
10-20-2005, 23:11
Here comes santy claus
right down republican lane
he's got tax breaks for the rich
and cutbacks for poor kids
santy knows who buys his votes
so he just follows the bucks
so jump under your bed and cover up your head
cause santy clause will make it right (winger)!
These comments aren't even worth a response. This thread is so intellectually polluted that it's a waste of time for me to even post here so this is my last visit to this joke of a thread. You libs have fun, now, okay.
Not according to The History Channel.
Anyway, I understand and respect your right to an opinon. You seem to have a pretty good grasp on events and dates. Any details on when priests (Christians) started molesting little boys? Probably not Jesus since The Divinci Code suggests him having an affair with Mary and resulting in a daughter, Sarah. (I know...it's just fiction :p)
You do have to thank the Conservatives and Bush for being there to try and make sure we live our lives according to the Good Book. They like to save souls but don't seem to give a damn saving anything else...like the earth...money...lives (eg Iraq), etc.
Just Jeff
10-21-2005, 02:15
...your premise is totally bogus.
Are you saying that the Democratic Party supports the environment out of principle, and they would keep it in their platform even if they got ZERO votes in the next election out of this position, simply because it's right?
I wish. A party willing to do that might earn my vote on principle.
Whistler
10-21-2005, 04:51
Do you want strong enforcement or more private property rights? This is far from complementary. However, if seeing the forests cut is sad, please sign the roadless petition:sun . Private property rights and strong enforcement of those rights go hand-in-hand. I'm not sure how anyone can disagree here. I did sign the petition, btw. I signed more out of a states' rights/ Constitutionalist mindset than a preservation one, though.
I am not saying that private owners are all bad, but these statements
fail to acknowledge the very LONG history of damage inflicted on the land by private owners. It was overcutting, overgrazing, overfarming, sloppy mining, and general environmental degradation that created the outcry for national forests, farming and range regulations, mining rules, and other environmental laws. These were reactions to problems, problems created by private property owners.Yes, I'll acknowledge that we've had problems. Without the ability to refer to specific situations, and an admitted lack of knowledge of those days, I'm guessing that many of the problems came in days when property rights were either a] poorly defined or b] abused [see: native Americans; land grants]. To the extent where the damage hurt someone else's property--that's where rigorously enforced laws come in.
Imposition of tariffs can be for good or bad reasons. You have made the assumption that these tariffs are making the price higher than free market value. Tariffs may be bringing the cost of the item to where it should be. The argument about mining and logging is therefore artificially one-sided.Tariffs can not be imposed for good reasons. Protectionism is a bad reason. Taxes are a bit better [depending on what you're spending them on, of course], but still distort markets. Tariffs will always raise the price of an imported good. If the good were allowed to cross borders absent a tariff, it would be cheaper. That's fact. That's good for the individual consumer as well as for businesses that use the lumber, steel, buttons, or whatever. As for tariffs "bringing the cost of the item to where it should be"--that's absurd. There are no universally 'right' or 'wrong' prices that 'ought' to be. Prices simply reflect demand and supply and time preferences. Forcefully-imposed high prices are always worse for individuals and for humanity as a whole.
This paragraph is incoherent. Let's break it down. You have two problems.
1. You perceive environmentalists as unwilling to buy and preserve land.
2. You feel like environmentalists force others to do it for them.
A key barrier is government intervention [to this, meaning to these problems?]
Another barrier is insistence on central planning.
The two barriers do not prevent either 1 or 2. The two "barriers" facilitate it.Sorry for my lack of clarity. You have my points 1 & 2 partially right. My point about the environmentally-minded: The problem is the disinterest/inability to preserve land on their own--a lack of enterprise, perhaps. To clarify my comments about barriers:
1. One, government. Enviro-sensitve people are often slighted by local and state and perhaps even federal governments, who control public lands and manage private lands through preferential taxing, zoning and other means. The 'slight' is the preference for development--encouraging business [i.e., so they can boost the tax digest]. Environmentalism isn't very profitable for governments, so they will tend to promote use rather than preservation. City and county governments, especially. I hope you can agree somewhat to this point.
For those that buy land and keep it mellow, more power to them. Baxter should be applauded, though I think it would be better had he kept the land as a purely private park whether for- or non-profit. Ted Turner comes to mind, too. He owns huge amounts of land out west, with a good vision to balance the conversation and sustainable use with his ranching and other ventures. Those are good examples that we would do well to follow, either as individuals or as groups like www.matlt.org (http://www.matlt.org/). Another free plug.
2. Two, environmentalists themselves. The second barrier to enterprising environmentalism is that many environmentalists have a statist/ central-planning mindset. When they say, "We need to protect such-and-such," what they actually mean is, "We need to take your tax money and direct it to our pet project whether or not you are in favor or perceive/ receive benefit."
I think it's a huge mistake to assume their values [preservation, natural beauty, open space] are universal and foist them on the tax-paying public. They say 3 million people use the AT each year--let's not forget that there are also about 3 million people living in Manhattan and the Bronx that absolutely love it, too [to say nothing of those who visit each year and love it]. Taxing others to pay for a forest is just as inane as taxing them to pay for a field of skyscrapers. Let people choose according to their values. Of course, feel free to try to persuade them as to what they should value [e.g., that the Smokies are a nicer visit than the Mall of America]. Far better to convince than compel.
Whew. Hope I've clarified without personally offending.
-Mark
[
B]Teatime[/B] lashed out:
This thread is so intellectually polluted that it's a waste of time for me to even post here so this is my last visit to this joke of a thread. You libs have fun, now, okay.
Sorry, if I drove you away I tend to get carried away sometimes. Anyway, you can always hit the ignore button. Ask yourself, "Is the rest of the discussion worthy odf my imput?" There's some pretty good stuff here...on both sides.
...I'm leaving soon to hike the Ozark Highlands Trail and won't be around to agitate.
Footslogger
10-21-2005, 09:55
...I'm leaving soon to hike the Ozark Highlands Trail and won't be around to agitate.===================================
Thanks ...I'll warn my in-laws who live in Arkansas
'Slogger
Footslogger
10-21-2005, 10:52
...Bite me!==========================
OK ...that's it. Where is the blocker button for Skeemer. He's out of hand again.
'Slogger
the NRA supports many conservation issues, and they're staunchly conservative. They need pristine lands so they have places to hunt.
I've owned guns and hunted for 60 years. Most of my adult life I've worked to preserve pristine lands. Some think I'm responsible for the recovery of 400,000 acres of public land in Maine.
Yet when I ran for the Maine State Senate in 1992, NRA and it's affiliate, the Sportsmen's Alliance of Maine, endorsed my Republican opponent, despite her having among the worst environmental and land protection voting records in the Legislature.
NRA supports a few token Democrats, but as near as I can tell it's basically a branch of the Right Wing of the Republican party.
Weary
Alligator
10-21-2005, 10:54
Private property rights and strong enforcement of those rights go hand-in-hand. I'm not sure how anyone can disagree here. I did sign the petition, btw. I signed more out of a states' rights/ Constitutionalist mindset than a preservation one, though.Strong enforcement was brought up after you discussed administration of public lands, but I see where you are coming from. I say they are not complementary because some have the opinion that they can do whatever they want with their land, but enforcement of some laws may prevent that.
Yes, I'll acknowledge that we've had problems. Without the ability to refer to specific situations, and an admitted lack of knowledge of those days, I'm guessing that many of the problems came in days when property rights were either a] poorly defined or b] abused [see: native Americans; land grants]. To the extent where the damage hurt someone else's property--that's where rigorously enforced laws come in.When I brought up those general cases, I was first considering that the damage was done to the individuals' property. That's generally where it starts. Do you think there should be some restrictions on private property that prevent degradation of said property. For example, needing a best management plan (BMP) before harvesting timber. (Don't feel like you have to comment specifically on BMP's if you are unfamiliar with them.) Absent laws, I still do not agree with you that simply owning private property well foister a conservation ethic. Just think of what some people do with their yards too!
Tariffs can not be imposed for good reasons. Protectionism is a bad reason. Taxes are a bit better [depending on what you're spending them on, of course], but still distort markets. Tariffs will always raise the price of an imported good. If the good were allowed to cross borders absent a tariff, it would be cheaper. That's fact. That's good for the individual consumer as well as for businesses that use the lumber, steel, buttons, or whatever. As for tariffs "bringing the cost of the item to where it should be"--that's absurd. There are no universally 'right' or 'wrong' prices that 'ought' to be. Prices simply reflect demand and supply and time preferences. Forcefully-imposed high prices are always worse for individuals and for humanity as a whole.What about foreign governments subsidizing industries? An ongoing dispute between US and Canada concerns lumber (logs?) derived from crown lands in Canada. I'm not picking a side, just providing an example. Suppose China (just an example) pours billions of dollars into their steel industry in an effort to undercut American steel. Suppose this is so egregious that the price they are selling it for does not even reflect the cost to produce it. The US should slap a tariff on it. There is an "ought to cost price". It ought to cost as much as it takes to produce it. In a market without government subsidies, the Chinese would go out of business doing this. But in this case, they could unfairly damage American businesses irrevocably.
Sorry for my lack of clarity. You have my points 1 & 2 partially right. My point about the environmentally-minded: The problem is the disinterest/inability to preserve land on their own--a lack of enterprise, perhaps. To clarify my comments about barriers:
1. One, government. Enviro-sensitve people are often slighted by local and state and perhaps even federal governments, who control public lands and manage private lands through preferential taxing, zoning and other means. The 'slight' is the preference for development--encouraging business . Environmentalism isn't very profitable for governments, so they will tend to promote use rather than preservation. City and county governments, especially. I hope you can agree somewhat to this point.I can see where environmentalists can have a reaction to 1. above and seek to reverse this policy through involvement in government. I sense you have a much deeper thought here. I think what you would prefer is to take active government out of the equation, which in your opinion would foster better defined property rights. Then they would have to buy land because there would be no public property.
For those that buy land and keep it mellow, more power to them. Baxter should be applauded, though I think it would be better had he kept the land as a purely private park whether for- or non-profit. Ted Turner comes to mind, too. He owns huge amounts of land out west, with a good vision to balance the conversation and sustainable use with his ranching and other ventures. Those are good examples that we would do well to follow, either as individuals or as groups like www.matlt.org (http://www.matlt.org/). Another free plug.Here's where I see a barrier with private property. It is a barrier. HEHE. No really. In the US, private property rights allow you to exclude just about anyone. You can put up a sign and keep the general public out. There are many people in society, through no fault of their own, who will never be able to afford a house. If they can afford a house, they will never be able to afford an acre, let alone a mountain. But they will pay taxes. They can collectively buy a road, a firehouse, chip in for police, and collectively, purchase a little greenspace that they can share with one another. This greenspace provides more than natural beauty, more than open space. It provides clean water, helps clean the air, provides habitat for both game and nongame species, shelters fish, absorbs CO2, serves as a repository of history, etc. The Libertarian in you thinks that these protections would arise on there own in the absence of government. History is an excellent guide to see that they will not. Some things in the environment can only be screwed up once before they are lost forever.
2. Two, environmentalists themselves. The second barrier to enterprising environmentalism is that many environmentalists have a statist/ central-planning mindset. When they say, "We need to protect such-and-such," what they actually mean is, "We need to take your tax money and direct it to our pet project whether or not you are in favor or perceive/ receive benefit."
I think it's a huge mistake to assume their values [preservation, natural beauty, open space] are universal and foist them on the tax-paying public. They say 3 million people use the AT each year--let's not forget that there are also about 3 million people living in Manhattan and the Bronx that absolutely love it, too [to say nothing of those who visit each year and love it]. Taxing others to pay for a forest is just as inane as taxing them to pay for a field of skyscrapers. Let people choose according to their values. Of course, feel free to try to persuade them as to what they should value [e.g., that the Smokies are a nicer visit than the Mall of America]. Far better to convince than compel.
Whew. Hope I've clarified without personally offending.
-MarkThe desire for public green space [i]is very universal. Most people love walks in the park, going to the beach, vacations in the mountains--why, just check the personal ads:clap.
Last, one's tax dollars, OUR tax dollars, are never going to go exactly where we want them to. Environmentalists (who do pay taxes BTW) are very aware of where their tax dollars are going. They often are at odds to those dollars going to other places too, just like you seem to be. People are selfish.
Whistler
10-21-2005, 12:11
I think we've made some progress, Alligator.
Do you think there should be some restrictions on private property that prevent degradation of said property. For example, needing a best management plan (BMP) before harvesting timber. (Don't feel like you have to comment specifically on BMP's if you are unfamiliar with them.) Absent laws, I still do not agree with you that simply owning private property well foister a conservation ethic. Just think of what some people do with their yards too! I don't think there should be laws or restrictions against degrading your own property. I'm not familiar with BMPs. Even in the situation of an privately-owned old-growth forest turned into a clearcut blister, I am against the restriction. Should the results of a clearcut interfere with another's property [harmful run-off, for example]--that's where laws come in. As far as restrictions before a clearcut becomes a problem, there is certainly room for those concerned to seek a court injunction, etc. There's also room for insurers and lenders to have a greater role--companies would need to demonstrate sound management and planning before they are funded or protected. No one likes liability.
What about foreign governments subsidizing industries? An ongoing dispute between US and Canada concerns lumber (logs?) derived from crown lands in Canada. I'm not picking a side, just providing an example. Suppose China (just an example) pours billions of dollars into their steel industry in an effort to undercut American steel. Suppose this is so egregious that the price they are selling it for does not even reflect the cost to produce it. The US should slap a tariff on it. There is an "ought to cost price". It ought to cost as much as it takes to produce it. In a market without government subsidies, the Chinese would go out of business doing this. But in this case, they could unfairly damage American businesses irrevocably.Ah, yes. The classic undercut. Let's forget about borders for a moment. They are relevant in politics, but economically meaningless. Or imagine that our states were separate countries. Can you see the pointless bickering about cheap Georgian peanuts flooding the South Carolina market? See the Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 6. There is a reason we have laws against interstate protectionism--everyone loses.
The same applies on a larger scale. Borders don't matter. What matters is satisfaction of the consumer, whether the consumer be an individual, a small business, or a multinational corporation, regardless of place of birth or incorporation. If China wants to waste their citizens' money by pushing their steel... well, that's bad for the Chinese, but the other 5 billion of us will benefit. Just who are we protecting? Surely the customer doesn't need protection from low prices! The tariff, the protection, is meant only for a small group of people in the steel industry. The losers are anyone who wants to buy steel. Some benefit, others pay.
Also imagine the loss of productivity by subsidizing American steel: this group of hard-working, competent employees is kept busy doing a service that others can do more cheaply. That's waste. We don't just need 'jobs,' we need productivity. If China wants to swindle itself to provide the rest of the world with cheap steel, that's great. Then the rest of us can get back to making wheat, or whatever.
I think what you would prefer is to take active government out of the equation, which in your opinion would foster better defined property rights. Then they would have to buy land because there would be no public property. That's more or less accurate.
There are many people in society, through no fault of their own, who will never be able to afford a house. If they can afford a house, they will never be able to afford an acre, let alone a mountain. But they will pay taxes. They can collectively buy a road, a firehouse, chip in for police, and collectively, purchase a little greenspace that they can share with one another.This can be done without taxation. A couple people who care, and are willing to chip in, can make a huge difference. That's how charities are born, how businesses get started, and how our neighborhood's playground stays in good shape. Apply the same on a larger scale.
This greenspace provides more than natural beauty, more than open space. It provides clean water, helps clean the air, provides habitat for both game and nongame species, shelters fish, absorbs CO2, serves as a repository of history, etc. The Libertarian in you thinks that these protections would arise on there own in the absence of government. History is an excellent guide to see that they will not.Perhaps because we do not value them enough? Or simply because we prefer other uses for the land? That's where my 'convince, not compel' argument comes in. If the desire for public green space is in fact universal, we will make it happen--peacefully.
Last, one's tax dollars, OUR tax dollars, are never going to go exactly where we want them to. Environmentalists (who do pay taxes BTW) are very aware of where their tax dollars are going. They often are at odds to those dollars going to other places too, just like you seem to be. People are selfish.That's part of my point. The more you control your money, the more you control the outcome. There's no need for a government to filter the money and direct it for us. Even if they did so perfectly in accordance with and in proportion to our wishes--we'd still have to pay for the public employees. Let's skip the middleman. Gather some like-minded folk and make a difference with your common resources.
-Mark
Thanks for posting Wookie. On a side note, I would argue that the problem isn't Bush per se, but lack of local control. Governors have to "petition" for approval from a federal department? That's absurd. We haven't had a functional 10th Amendment for decades.
-Mark
I'm going to get nailed for this but I don't think we should even have "national forests". That should be a state function in my opinion.
Since you fired the first shot...I am a realist, you are the Pollyanna. You truly believe your techno geeks are going to solve problems, such as global warming? Have you read their proposals. Giant CO2 scrubbers and filters, again you are into science fiction. You even believe that there are conservatives. Admit it, you wait for the Easter Bunny every spring.
I think that, given the situation we are in, technology and human innovation are the only viable and socially just solutions to these problems. I don't know exactly how these problems are going to be solved, I don't even know if some of the problems you mentioned even exist. I do know that the ice cap in Greenland is thickening despite predictions of a thaw, and the prophets of disaster are now adjusting their theories so that, despite their previous predictions, this thickening of the ice cap is now caused by the global warming that was suopposed to melt it. However, I'd rather live in todays world than any time previously, and if you offered me a trip to the future i'd take it because unlike you I believe in humanity, while you seem to think all we are capable of is selfish "resource grabs" and that we are caught in this destructive downward spiral, despite the fact that human history has been more like a rocket shooting upward. Mabye I am a pollyanna, but the power of positive thinking is well known. If you believe you are going to fail, you fail, if our whole race saw itself the way you do, we'd have failed a long time ago. Mabye the reason you so despise your own race has more to do with how you see yourself than the reality of humanity's amazing progress this last century.
I'm going to get nailed for this but I don't think we should even have "national forests". That should be a state function in my opinion.
The White Mountain National Forest attracts millions of visitors each year from a six state region. It is a regional treasure. I can think of no good reason to turn it's management over to just one state. I suspect the same is true of many National Forests.
Though the Whites are located in New Hampshire, I suspect a majority of visitors hail from Massachusetts. Certainly, a majority of visitors live somewhere beside New Hampshire.
Weary
Drum Stick
10-21-2005, 15:13
I have been following along. Very very interesting thread indeed! FYI there is new technology to scrub coal of C02 before combustion and the process is said to be very economical.
Drummy
Tha Wookie
10-21-2005, 16:00
The White Mountain National Forest attracts millions of visitors each year from a six state region. It is a regional treasure. I can think of no good reason to turn it's management over to just one state. I suspect the same is true of many National Forests.
Though the Whites are located in New Hampshire, I suspect a majority of visitors hail from Massachusetts. Certainly, a majority of visitors live somewhere beside New Hampshire.
Weary
I agree here with Weary. As a somewhat traditional Southerner, I very much like the idea of a decentralized goverment. My family might still have our Alabama farmland if it weren't for national legislation that has put the American farmer on the streets or in a cubicle.
But, when it comes to National Forests and Parks, they are simply more than a state can be expected to manage. As Weary points out, many intact forests extend farther than a state's political boundaries. Even out west, where states are much larger, they are making decisions based on the fact that natural ecosystems do not live in a political vaccum like the imaginary state lines. What happens in one forest or river area can greatly effect other areas far away. They must be managed in an aggregate scheme to protect the vivacious web of life that expands accross our country.
As an example that takes it even further, let's look at the Nature Conservancy efforts in Baja Mexico. Even though the land and Sea of Cortez lie outside of the states, the ecological significance of that area is critical to America. Look at the gray whale, that breeds every year in the Gulf and then migrates to feed all the way to Alaska, and is a major player in the coastal US food chain (while genereating millions of tourism dollars in the US along the way). Then there's all the migrating birds, the other sea mammals, sharks, fishes -the list goes on and on. The point is that managing ecoclogical systems based on arbitrary political boundaries is not a good idea period.
Alligator
10-21-2005, 16:11
I think we've made some progress, Alligator.
I don't think there should be laws or restrictions against degrading your own property. I'm not familiar with BMPs. Even in the situation of an privately-owned old-growth forest turned into a clearcut blister, I am against the restriction. Should the results of a clearcut interfere with another's property [harmful run-off, for example]--that's where laws come in. As far as restrictions before a clearcut becomes a problem, there is certainly room for those concerned to seek a court injunction, etc. There's also room for insurers and lenders to have a greater role--companies would need to demonstrate sound management and planning before they are funded or protected. No one likes liability.I’ll try to convince you on this point because it’s important. A person owns an acre of productive farmland. They muck it up so much, pesticides, oil spills etc. that it annihilates the productive capacity to nothing. This acre is then removed from the finite pool of farmland. There is now one less acre to support society. Soil is irreplaceable on a human timescale. I find this unacceptable. This person has impaired the future ability of the land to support others. Now multiply this effect due to shortsightedness. It is a matter of ethics not economics.
Ah, yes. The classic undercut. Let's forget about borders for a moment. They are relevant in politics, but economically meaningless. Or imagine that our states were separate countries. Can you see the pointless bickering about cheap Georgian peanuts flooding the South Carolina market? See the Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 6. There is a reason we have laws against interstate protectionism--everyone loses.
The same applies on a larger scale. Borders don't matter. What matters is satisfaction of the consumer, whether the consumer be an individual, a small business, or a multinational corporation, regardless of place of birth or incorporation. If China wants to waste their citizens' money by pushing their steel... well, that's bad for the Chinese, but the other 5 billion of us will benefit. Just who are we protecting? Surely the customer doesn't need protection from low prices! The tariff, the protection, is meant only for a small group of people in the steel industry. The losers are anyone who wants to buy steel. Some benefit, others pay.There is an economic cost in the loss of the steel industry. While the consumer might gain, it is an assumption that their gain will offset the loss involved to US steel. (Net effect can be negative) Capital invested in factories is sidelined, workers will sit idle until retrained (if possible), machinery will depreciate or even become obsolete. That's a large amount of lost productivity. There are other social costs involved from having a large group unemployed too. And its bad for the Chinese. Since there are no borders, the world may not really benefit in the least.
But I'll bring this back to the original discussion.
I think strong systems of private property will do more to create and sustain a conservation ethic than a system of public lands. The benefit is that private owners seek to improve their property and maintain it for long-term value.All a private owner has to do is to squeeze more money out of the land than he put in. Conservation does not follow from this scenario. It may, but it may not. The private owner may be out for short term gain, maybe long-term. It's not a sure conclusion.
A system of public lands, however, has a much greater potential to promote conservation due to the enactment of multiple environmental laws. While abuses occur in some places, the public has a much greater ability to protest abuse of the land. The lands are held to higher standards. Managers are intended to provide responsible stewardship. Profit is not the overriding consideration, both conservation and preservation is. There is plenty of private ownership in this country, but it's the national forests and parks which provide leadership in conservation and preservation.
This can be done without taxation. A couple people who care, and are willing to chip in, can make a huge difference. That's how charities are born, how businesses get started, and how our neighborhood's playground stays in good shape. Apply the same on a larger scale.
Perhaps because we do not value them enough? Or simply because we prefer other uses for the land? That's where my 'convince, not compel' argument comes in. If the desire for public green space is in fact universal, we will make it happen--peacefully.It is universal. It is an extremely rare person who does not value some aspect of the environment. The beach, the ocean, mountains, meadows, forests, a field of grass, the desert, the arctic north wherever. Drop someone in Yellowstone or the painted desert and even city dwellers' eyes will light up like children. But the property needs to be in existence and accessible.
That's part of my point. The more you control your money, the more you control the outcome. There's no need for a government to filter the money and direct it for us. Even if they did so perfectly in accordance with and in proportion to our wishes--we'd still have to pay for the public employees. Let's skip the middleman. Gather some like-minded folk and make a difference with your common resources.
-MarkEven if charities and businesses did things in perfect accordance with and proportion to our wishes, we'd still have to pay for administrators and accountants. You can't skip the middlepeople;).
I don't buy into Libertarianism. Sorry, I'm not convinced. There are other schools of economic/political thought, too. I believe that government has a role, many actually, to play in society. I'm surrounded by like minded people:sun .
Blue Jay
10-21-2005, 17:00
I don't even know if some of the problems you mentioned even exist. I do know that the ice cap in Greenland is thickening despite predictions of a thaw....Mabye the reason you so despise your own race has more to do with how you see yourself than the reality of humanity's amazing progress this last century.
Dearest Polly, I'm not in any way surprised to see you've now appointed yourself an amateur psychiatrist. I respectfully request that if you could take time from worshiping at the alter of technology to cite where you obtained the Greenland Ice Cap BS. Could it be the Bat Cave? I clearly cited where my evidence came from, the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration, which said "There is better scientific consensus in this issue than on any other issue I know, except Newton's Second Law. It's amazing how often techno lovers don't even read the scientific journals their gods write. Remember Santa Claus is coming to town. :eek:
Blue Jay
10-21-2005, 17:18
you seem to think all we are capable of is selfish "resource grabs" and that we are caught in this destructive downward spiral, despite the fact that human history has been more like a rocket shooting upward.
What goes up must come down. Oh, I forgot, to Pollys gravity is too negative. I can't wait to hear about your perpetual motion machine. Human history is filled with civilizations rising and falling, not once going upward to infinity. Are there no bounds to your ignorance?
Editorial NYT, Oct. 21
The National Parks Under Siege
Year after year, Americans express greater satisfaction with the National Park Service than with almost any other aspect of the federal government. From the point of view of most visitors, there is no incentive to revise the basic management policy that guides park superintendents, a policy that was last revised in 2001 and is usually re-examined only every 10 or 15 years. Longtime park service employees feel much the same way. Yet in the past two months we have seen two proposed revisions. The first, written by Paul Hoffman, a deputy assistant secretary in the Interior Department, was a genuinely scandalous rewriting that would have destroyed the national park system.
On Tuesday, the Interior Department released a new draft. The question isn't whether this revision is better than Mr. Hoffman's drastic rewrite. Almost anything would be better than his version, a glaring example of the zeal to dilute conservation with commercialism among political appointees in the Interior Department. But the new draft would still undermine the national parks.
This entire exercise is unnecessary, driven by politics and ideology. The only reason for revisiting and revising the 2001 management policy was Mr. Hoffman's belief, expressed during a press conference earlier this week, that the 2001 policy is "anti-enjoyment." This will surely come as news to the 96 percent of park visitors who year after year express approval of their experiences. The kind of enjoyment Mr. Hoffman has in mind - as clearly evidenced by his draft and by remarks from Interior Secretary Gale Norton - is opening up the parks to off-road vehicles, including snowmobiles. The ongoing effort to revise the 2001 policy betrays a powerful sense, shared by many top interior officials, that the national parks are resources not to be protected but to be exploited.
This new policy document doesn't go as far as the earlier version. But it would eliminate the requirement that only motorized equipment with the least impact should be used in national parks. It would lower air-quality standards and strip away language about preserving the parks' natural soundscape - language that currently makes it hard, for instance, to justify allowing snowmobiles into Yellowstone. It would also refer park superintendents to other management documents that have been revised to weaken fundamental standards and protections for the parks.
Mr. Hoffman and National Park Service officials have tried to argue that this new policy revision offers greater clarity. What it really offers is greater flexibility to interpret the rules the way they want to. The thrust of these changes is to diminish the historical, and legally upheld, premise that preservation is the central mission of the park system.
Here, for instance, is what this proposed policy revision would remove from the very heart of the park system's mission statement: "Congress, recognizing that the enjoyment by future generations of the national parks can be ensured only if the superb quality of park resources and values is left unimpaired, has provided that when there is a conflict between conserving resources and values and providing for enjoyment of them, conservation is to be predominant."
These unambiguous words contain the legal and legislative history that has protected the parks over the years from exactly the kind of change Mr. Hoffman has in mind, allowing all the rest of us to enjoy the national parks in ways that are more respectful of the future and of the parks themselves.
One of the most troubling aspects of this revised policy is how it was produced. Instead of being shaped by park service professionals thinking in a timely way about how to do their jobs better, this is a defensive document that was rushed forward to head off the more sweeping damage that Mr. Hoffman's first draft threatened to do. It is a tribute to the National Park Service veterans who worked on it that they were able to mitigate so much of the harm, even though they, too, were working directly under Mr. Hoffman's eye. They risked their jobs to protect the parks from political appointees in the Interior Department. This is a measure of how distorted the department's policies have become.
There is more potential damage on the way. At least two deeply worrying new directives have been handed down. One allows the National Park Service to solicit contributions from individuals and corporations instead of merely accepting them when they're offered. This is another way to further the privatization of the national parks and edge toward their commercialization. Privatizing the government's core responsibilities - like the national parks - is unacceptable, and so is the prospect of any greater commercial presence in the parks.
More alarming still is a directive released last week that would require park personnel who hope to advance above the middle-manager level to go through what is essentially a political screening. What we are witnessing, in essence, is an effort to politicize the National Park Service - to steer it away from its long-term mission of preserving much-loved national treasures and make it echo the same political mind-set that turned Mr. Hoffman, a former Congressional aide to Dick Cheney and a former head of the Cody, Wyo., chamber of commerce, into an architect of national park policy.
But, when it comes to National Forests and Parks, they are simply more than a state can be expected to manage. As Weary points out, many intact forests extend farther than a state's political boundaries.
Perhaps, but I think this excuse can be used by just about any federal program.
If the federal governement could run the National Forests with no tax money, only user fees, than I don't have much of a problem with the concept. I'm not big on forcing people (real force! like with guns!) to pay for something that they don't use. I'm a mellow libertarian and I'm against initiating violence on people.
Blue Jay
10-21-2005, 19:23
Editorial NYT, Oct. 21
The National Parks Under Siege
At least two deeply worrying new directives have been handed down. One allows the National Park Service to solicit contributions from individuals and corporations instead of merely accepting them when they're offered. This is another way to further the privatization of the national parks and edge toward their commercialization. Privatizing the government's core responsibilities - like the national parks - is unacceptable, and so is the prospect of any greater commercial presence in the parks.
Weary, when most people are in National Parks they are not working and even worse they are not consuming. Granted some are placing orders on their cellphones, but there is no rule forcing them to do so. This lack of consuming must stop, it's already been going on for far to long. Besides, if tastefully done the bears will not mind wearing CocaCola signs.
Perhaps, but I think this excuse can be used by just about any federal program.
If the federal governement could run the National Forests with no tax money, only user fees, than I don't have much of a problem with the concept. I'm not big on forcing people (real force! like with guns!) to pay for something that they don't use. I'm a mellow libertarian and I'm against initiating violence on people.
The percentage of taxes paid that goes towards national forest and parks is negligible. When it comes to taxes everyone pays for things they don't use, desire or agree with, that's the nature of the beast. As it is now, we're pumping billions of tax $$'s into Iraq when are own infrastructure is crumpling and funds withheld, but since Bush is running record deficits nobody notices. Don't worry, your kids will.
Tha Wookie
10-22-2005, 16:08
Perhaps, but I think this excuse can be used by just about any federal program.
If the federal governement could run the National Forests with no tax money, only user fees, than I don't have much of a problem with the concept. I'm not big on forcing people (real force! like with guns!) to pay for something that they don't use. I'm a mellow libertarian and I'm against initiating violence on people.
Everyone uses National Forests.
Pause.... here that sound? It's your breath.
Thank the forests. They are no excuse.
You know, I wish we were all Indians, living with the forests like members of our extending family, managing them with local loving care for our regional needs.
But we're not.
SGT Rock
10-22-2005, 16:10
Everyone uses National Forests.
Pause.... here that sound? It's your breath.
Thank the forests. They are no excuse.
You know, I wish we were all Indians, living with the forests like members of our extending family, managing them with local loving care for our regional needs.
But we're not.
You ain't married yet Wookie :p
Naw, because I can't stand to live that close to my in-laws. But otherwise I would love to live in a National Forest. Of couse, there are some individuals I wuld be loath to let live there with my other than my in-laws LOL.
Dearest Polly, I'm not in any way surprised to see you've now appointed yourself an amateur psychiatrist. I respectfully request that if you could take time from worshiping at the alter of technology to cite where you obtained the Greenland Ice Cap BS. Could it be the Bat Cave? I clearly cited where my evidence came from, the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration, which said "There is better scientific consensus in this issue than on any other issue I know, except Newton's Second Law. It's amazing how often techno lovers don't even read the scientific journals their gods write. Remember Santa Claus is coming to town.
I just figured you guys were all over this topic and had read about it before I ever did. Here's a link.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1487477.htm
I admit that last bit was a cheap shot, sometimes I forget about etiquette when online because there's noone in the room to trigger my social inhibitions. That self analysis will hopefully be my last psychiatric evaluation of a whiteblaze member. Hopefully. Anyhow, lots of people saying something doesn't mean it's true. I'm no expert on these things and neither are you, but I can read as well as you and I see plenty of conflicting viewpoints among the scientific community. I just feel that many of the world instituions promoting the global warming scare have political affiliations that make me question everything they say. You conspiracy types ought to understand this type of doubt. Someone else put something about this on WB once before, anyway its a good example.
http://covenantson.chattablogs.com/archives/027805.html
http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/ I posted this link on the same thread.
I've also read about studies that suggest that we are entering an ice age, so mabye some greenhouse gasses would be helpful.
Anyhow there is not consensus.
Also, Newtons second law has been overturned since about 1915.
What goes up must come down. Oh, I forgot, to Pollys gravity is too negative. I can't wait to hear about your perpetual motion machine. Human history is filled with civilizations rising and falling, not once going upward to infinity. Are there no bounds to your ignorance?
Sorry about the personal jab pointed out by BJ. I know that you do not want to see our species' project fail. I know that when you are finally proven wrong you will be as delighted as I will be. Your view of human history is too compartmentalized. Sure various cultures have risen and waned over the ages, but the general progression when viewed in it's entirety is definitly pretty impressive, and clearly on a graph would be mostly in the rising direction, especially when it come to ethics, science, the arts, etc., the foundations of our grand civilisation project. All that said, I agree with the general idea of preserving nature's simple beauty, it is as much a resource for that quality as oil or whatever you like. If we want to do so effectively, technology will have to be in the picture, because the population explosion is just beginning, and it took a million years for us to get to a billion people, and it took another hundred to get to 5.5 billion. They all come first. Without the intervention of human technology to both engineer and maintain the "wild" (sadly, I don't think that word will completely apply...) ecosystems, feed the populations etc. we will indeed crash and burn. So what I'm saying is, if you truly love your fellow man, promoting the kind of technological and economic development you seem to detest is the best hope for success we have, and considering how well we've done with everything else, I think it will.
Cookerhiker
10-22-2005, 17:02
... Anyhow, lots of people saying something doesn't mean it's true. I'm no expert on these things and neither are you, but I can read as well as you and I see plenty of conflicting viewpoints among the scientific community. I just feel that many of the world instituions promoting the global warming scare have political affiliations that make me question everything they say. You conspiracy types ought to understand this type of doubt....
I do not agree that the National Academy of Scientists or the American Meteorological Society "have political affiliations that make me question everything they say." NOAA and EPA both of whom also consdier global warming a serious issue, are federal agencies headed by appointees of this administration.
Meanwhile, check out the following articles - it's not just the typical doomsday/treehugger/envirowackos who realize the problem. Even much of corporate America (with the notorious exception of ExxmoMobil) is getting the message.
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200509/lol.asp
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200505/ways.asp
The corporations are getting the message from consumers, not scientists. They aren't accepting the science, they are doing what they always do, crafting the image they think is most salable to the public. As for the need to adapt to a changing world, lessen dependancy on fossil fuels etc. etc. I'm not saying anything is wrong with that. What I oppose is this knee-jerk to the left these guys have anytime any issue is brought up, and specifically, the fatalistic assumptions by some on this site that human development is a march towards destruction, anti-hope, anti-tech, anti-progress etc. etc. While no one has yet proposed an alternative to my statement that we will not succeed in saving ourselves if we don't pursue the route of economic growth, technological development, and realistic resource production and management. (nuke power, genetic engineering, etc. etc...Actually, the left seems to have stopped bitchin about nuclear power)
Has anybody heard of this guy...
http://www.lomborg.com/books.htm
Very interesting, all you libzombies should read the stuff on his site. By the way, he aknowledges the reality of some type of global warming phenomena.
MoBeach42
10-22-2005, 20:28
A couple of things that I'd like to throw in the mix. I haven't read everything in the middle of this thread... was following at the beginning and have been away for a while. BUT, here we go anways...
First, several people seem to think that the "government" is something "over there" that is messing with them and a they feel it is a burden, and they feel it is something "other". We all need to remember that the government IS US. Or at least it should be. The governement isn't something "out there" that is burdening us, but rather it's simply a manifestation of the will of the people. Or at least it should be. If you don't think it's a manifestation of the will of the people, then maybe we should figure out how to make it so.
Second:
no one has yet proposed an alternative to my statement that we will not succeed in saving ourselves if we don't pursue the route of economic growth, technological development, and realistic resource production and management
Ok, I'll take this one. The reason that we won't save ourselves by pursuing technological inovation and economic growth is that those things are not connected to human happiness. In fact, asside from basic needs - food, shelter and clothing - things distract us from true human happiness. And they diminish our freedom. Everything we own owns us, and we are forced to take care of, worry about, and pay upkeep in both time and money on it.
So by continuing to believe that STUFF can fix our problems, we cover up the fact that the production of STUFF is destroying that which CAN make us happy - a beautiful world (dare I say, creation?) which we can enjoy and live in. And this isn't a Democrat or Republican thing. Neither party gets it... and both propose "STUFF" solutions to the the crisis.
MoBeach42
10-22-2005, 20:34
economic growth, technological development, and realistic resource production and management.
The end of this sentence shows the problem with your argument, namely the words "resources production." We don't produce resources. Asside from a very few resources which replenish themselves on a human time scale if we manage them wisely (plants and trees), we consume FINITE RESOURCES.
And the big question is whether there are enough of those finite resources to go around to EVERYONE on the planet, and what standard of living can be accomodated if it is adopted by EVERYONE.
My thought: if everyone adopted American middle class standard of living, there would NOT be enough to go around. And why would we want to anyway? Because of part 2 above. American middle class standard of living does not make us happy. We need to stop thinking about standard of living and start thinking about QUALITY OF LIFE.
Ok, I'll take this one. The reason that we won't save ourselves by pursuing technological inovation and economic growth is that those things are not connected to human happiness. In fact, asside from basic needs - food, shelter and clothing - things distract us from true human happiness. And they diminish our freedom. Everything we own owns us, and we are forced to take care of, worry about, and pay upkeep in both time and money on it.
This is another one of those things that gets said all the time. Its BS. We get happiness from achievement. From learning, gaining a deeper understanding of our universe, selves and things. The basic idea underlying this discussion is that beauty has value, and the only reason it would is if we are appreciating it. So a desire for aesthetics, a need for deep understanding, and an urge for accomplishment are just as basic to humanity as those needs. Food, shelter, clothing (?)are ncessary for survival, but happiness needs more, and we of course are entitled to the pursuit of it. As far as resources being finite, thats off, too. Science has provided us with the understanding to tap natural sources such as petroleum, sunlight, hydrogen, nuclear power, genetic engineering, (which will feed our hungry no matter what the europeans say about it) that are as plentyful as the universe is big. As for the unfolding future, there are guideposts and warnings here. The ultimate problem is man's control of his own inventions -- not only the minor ones, like the internet and the atom bomb, but the major inventions -- language, culture and technology. Man is tough and resourceful, all things considered; our descendants will have to be tougher and more resourceful still.
The odds are all against them. They always have been. But Man himself is so unlikely that if he did not exist, his possibility would not be worth discussing. My money is on Man and his inventions. I have a hunch that the next century will prove me right.
digger51
10-22-2005, 23:21
Wookie - I am a lifelong Republican but saw nothing wrong with the petition. I felt it was respectful and got the message across that a wrong was being committed. Therefore, I signed it. I hope it does some good.
Just Jeff
10-23-2005, 00:55
The reason that we won't save ourselves by pursuing technological inovation and economic growth is that those things are not connected to human happiness.
Hogwash! (Respectfully, of course :) ) Without technology, we'd all be hunter-gatherers. It goes something like this:
Before some brave mind discovered technology, ALL of our time went towards meeting our basic needs. So somebody said, "I can do better" and figured out how to plant crops - the Agricultural Revolution was about applying technology to meet our needs more efficiently.
So cities developed because now people didn't have to wander around. Then a brilliant mind found a better way to grow crops, and he could provide food for more than just himself and his family. This surplus provided others with enough free time to specialize in new things - artisans, philosophers, musicians, rulers (govt) who could build roads and provide basic services, etc. Because of technology, they were able to use their time to create "goods of happiness" instead of simply providing for their own basic needs.
But the size of cities was limited for a long time - they could not grow larger than the distance from which food could be delivered without spoiling. More people had to work to create the same amount of goods. What's the answer? Better transportation (technology)!
Through technology (railroads, refigerated trailers, etc.) we can now feed an entire country from a relatively small land area because the food doesn't go bad during shipment. So a few people farm enough food for every citizen, then those citizens can create the things that make us happy.
Does music make you happy? How much time do people have to create music if most of their day is spent meeting basic needs? Technology provides that answer.
Does a doctor having instant access to medical information to save a patient's life increase happiness? I bet it does for that patient and his family. That's technology...the doctor's schooling, his instant access to information via the internet, and the patient's resultant longer life-span.
Your point is well-taken - worshipping technology does us no good. But apprehending the laws of nature and using that knowledge to shape our environment improves our lives, which frees up more time to do the things we enjoy - it "creates" happiness, or at least sets the conditions for it...what we do with that is up to us. That too many people choose to become slaves to their "created environment" is independent of the fact that technology improved it.
Was there happiness before all this? Sure - but only about 35 years of it per person. Then technology increased that to 45, then 55, then 65...you get the idea. My ancestors worked from sunup to sundown just to survive. I can spend 8 hours a day working, 8 hours sleeping, and another 8 hours doing whatever I want to. And I'll live longer doing it. That makes me happy. Technology did that.
I can respect someone who stands up for what he believes by dropping out of society and meeting his own needs. But there's only one word for someone who buys groceries at a grocery store (produced from creation through purchase with technology), pays with his debit card instead of trading a deer carcass for a sack of wild potatoes, then gets on the internet to complain about it. (Not trying to get personal...just making a general statement.)
As I said before, I can agree that we need to be more responsible with our environment - we only have one. But this idea that technology doesn't improve our lives is in the same vein as the tax-the-hell-out-of-the-producers who enable our way of life...it's dangerous.
Drum Stick
10-23-2005, 07:27
The problem I had with the roadless rule in the past was that I felt we needed better access in our forests for fire fighters. So I contacted (and now hike) with some people at the Fire Fighters Lookout Association to get a better handle on the vulnerability of our forests to wildfire. As it turns out lookouts are quicky becoming history because of a few technologies. Fire is being detected via sattelite fairly well although lookouts themselves are not very excited about it as they love their outdoor jobs. Firefighters are also begining to use UAV's to monitor forest fire as it is being fought. Also several Boeing 747's have been fitted with large water tanks and will fight forest fire from the air. Sweet technology!
The satellites used for detecting fire are part of a growing global sensor system (I forget the name of the system) used by the USDA, USFS, and many other orgs around the globe. The sattelites capture images of farm land for instance and are then fed to farmers (techno geeks) who use the information to generate a 'prescription' for their crops duster/spayers and irrigation equipment. Farmers actually upload the precription to spraying equipment. This way farmers use only the right amount of pesticide and water in the right location. This is scratching the surface of the capabilities of the global sensor system but aint technology nice. I thought you might find this interesting.
Cheap energy makes it possible to ship food and goods long distances. Without cheap energy we will revert to some old ways (working and living close to home) but it ain't all bad.
Just my techno babble offering. I am finding the many points of view in this thread interesting and I am actually learning a few things, thanks
Drum Stick
Just Jeff commented
That too many people choose to become slaves to their "created environment" is independent of the fact that technology improved it.
Very profound.
And the reason we won't end up saving ourselves hasn't anything to due with technology...it is because, with all these technological improvements, we have become lazy and selfish. We want the good life and WE WANT IT NOW! We don't care if plastic bottles fill up the landfills as long as we get a swig of ice cold Coor's when we're thirsty while watching NAASCAR on our platinum flat screen TV. We can charge the beer, TV...everything and take second mortgages and go to Las Vegas and just enjoy whatever we damn well please.
Technology can't overcome this in the end.
Cookerhiker
10-23-2005, 09:55
The corporations are getting the message from consumers, not scientists. They aren't accepting the science, they are doing what they always do, crafting the image they think is most salable to the public. As for the need to adapt to a changing world, lessen dependancy on fossil fuels etc. etc. I'm not saying anything is wrong with that. What I oppose is this knee-jerk to the left these guys have anytime any issue is brought up, and specifically, the fatalistic assumptions by some on this site that human development is a march towards destruction, anti-hope, anti-tech, anti-progress etc. etc. While no one has yet proposed an alternative to my statement that we will not succeed in saving ourselves if we don't pursue the route of economic growth, technological development, and realistic resource production and management. (nuke power, genetic engineering, etc. etc...Actually, the left seems to have stopped bitchin about nuclear power)
Has anybody heard of this guy...
http://www.lomborg.com/books.htm
Very interesting, all you libzombies should read the stuff on his site. By the way, he aknowledges the reality of some type of global warming phenomena.
We may disagree on issues (or whether an issue exists or not) and their resolutions BFitz, but please cut the name-calling. Not all of us who support positions you disagree with or consider "liberal" are "zombies."
Very profound.
And the reason we won't end up saving ourselves hasn't anything to due with technology...it is because, with all these technological improvements, we have become lazy and selfish. We want the good life and WE WANT IT NOW! We don't care if plastic bottles fill up the landfills as long as we get a swig of ice cold Coor's when we're thirsty while watching NAASCAR on our platinum flat screen TV. We can charge the beer, TV...everything and take second mortgages and go to Las Vegas and just enjoy whatever we damn well please.
Technology can't overcome this in the end.
Nope, but the human spirit which has overcome every other challenge the universe has put up against us, will save us, and the human innovation that has given us technology, philosophy, etc, will overcome both th physical and psychological challenges of the future. I don't want to repeat my post 201 here, since it said everything I mean to point out here. Your another one of those self haters that can't stand the thought of his own species acendance, Why is this idea so prevalent? Look around you, WE ROCK!
We may disagree on issues (or whether an issue exists or not) and their resolutions BFitz, but please cut the name-calling. Not all of us who support positions you disagree with or consider "liberal" are "zombies."
I'm not calling all "liberals" zombies, in fact, in another argument somewhere, someone might mistake me for a liberal...I hate the labels because all of us are more complex than our ideas. But some people simply choose the scripted arguments of the "liberal establishment" without any real philosophical consideration of the idea. They are the left equivalent of Rush Limbaugh, unthinking knee-jerk, programmed, repetitive responses that aren't even arguments. I refer to them as libzombies...just alittle humor to get everyone fired up and responding. Glad to see you're awake, cooker. I think a little name calling so long as it isn't really mean or specifically personal is okay, and I do'nt do it half as much as that skeemer guy, although I admit I've had to apologize a few times from getting carried away with my own passionate uideas about future history...or whatever. So do we disagree or not? you didn't say. As long as you don't despise your own species and all it stands for then we'll probably have some common ground in our thinking.
Cookerhiker
10-23-2005, 12:17
...I'm not calling all "liberals" zombies, in fact, in another argument somewhere, someone might mistake me for a liberal...I hate the labels because all of us are more complex than our ideas. But some people simply choose the scripted arguments of the "liberal establishment" without any real philosophical consideration of the idea. They are the left equivalent of Rush Limbaugh, unthinking knee-jerk, programmed, repetitive responses that aren't even arguments. I refer to them as libzombies...just alittle humor to get everyone fired up and responding. Glad to see you're awake, cooker. I think a little name calling so long as it isn't really mean or specifically personal is okay, and I do'nt do it half as much as that skeemer guy, although I admit I've had to apologize a few times from getting carried away with my own passionate uideas about future history...or whatever. So do we disagree or not? you didn't say. As long as you don't despise your own species and all it stands for then we'll probably have some common ground in our thinking.
...I'm not calling all "liberals" zombies, in fact, in another argument somewhere, someone might mistake me for a liberal...I hate the labels because all of us are more complex than our ideas. But some people simply choose the scripted arguments of the "liberal establishment" without any real philosophical consideration of the idea. They are the left equivalent of Rush Limbaugh, unthinking knee-jerk, programmed, repetitive responses that aren't even arguments. I refer to them as libzombies...just alittle humor to get everyone fired up and responding. Glad to see you're awake, cooker. I think a little name calling so long as it isn't really mean or specifically personal is okay, and I do'nt do it half as much as that skeemer guy, although I admit I've had to apologize a few times from getting carried away with my own passionate uideas about future history...or whatever. So do we disagree or not? you didn't say. As long as you don't despise your own species and all it stands for then we'll probably have some common ground in our thinking.
All right, I understand the context and yes, we probably do have some common ground. I eschew labels myself. I agree with many of your points on technology improving our lives; history proves your point, particularly in areas like medicine. I guess the ultimate test is that when contemplating whether I'm living in the right era, I always answer yes! I certainly don't want to go back to the "good old days" of horse-and-buggy, moldy food, having to build a wood fire to stay warm, worrying about smallpox, and lack of indoor plumbing (except of course on the AT!). And speaking of AT hiking, nearly all of us embrace the technological improvements in backpacks, stoves,sleeping bags, clothes etc.; I certainly do.
But I hope you agree that sometimes technological "advances" backfire or have negative consequences. Was Hitler the worst mass murderer in history because he was the worst person or because he had the technological means not available to Ghengis Khan, Ivan the Terrible, Attila the Hun, etc.? Since virtually the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, humankind has wrestled with the two faces of technology.
Improved technology has resulted in the ability to clearcut forests faster. Improved technology spurs overfishing by allowing huge trawlers to sweep through the ocean floors catching or disrupting everything and damaging coral reefs. Improved technology enables the shaving off of mountain tops for coal mining in Appalachia with the resultant waste being dumped into streams and valleys. Improved technology in the form of the invention of air conditioning created development and sprawl threatening ecosystems in the southern tier of the US, from the Everglades to the deserts. You've decried non-thinking knee-jerk types of both left and right; wouldn't you agree that the techology of television has fostered this type of mentality?
You may argue that further technological improvement can alleviate these or other issues. And I can agree with you but this improvement will only come about if the problems are first recognized in the first place. And this is my problem with most modern day conservatives; they deny the problem. Why? Because in my opinion their blind antipathy to any government action, pervents problem recognition and response. Think Grover Norquist whose now-famous dictum - get government small enough to flush it down the toilet - shows where he was coming from when his reaction to September 11 wasn't sympathy or compassion for the victims but a whine that this would mean "more government."
I'm not saying that the only (knee-jerk liberal) position is draconian command-and-control regulations. But sometimes, that works. Look, I'm a retired fed and I well know (and have experienced) the frustrations and ineffciencies of bureaucracy. You could say that improved technology has made the air and water cleaner in most of the US in the past 40 years and you'd be correct. But this technology would not have come about without the legislation (Clean Air Act, etc) and implementing regulations along with enforcement of those regulations.
And no, not all of us who often advocate from the left are self haters or feel the human race is despicable and/or doomed, a position incidentally which I often glean from some of the "Christian right" types (who approach it from another side but arrive at the same conclusion).
II do know that the ice cap in Greenland is thickening despite predictions of a thaw, and the prophets of disaster are now adjusting their theories so that, despite their previous predictions, this thickening of the ice cap is now caused by the global warming that was suopposed to melt it. .
There's no real dispute about the fact of global warming. Virtually all the scientific measurements point the same way. Studies in Europe show leaves are emerging from their winter freeze two weeks earlier. Killing frosts are coming two weeks later on average.
I've lived in my house on Maine's midcoast since 43 years ago this coming Thursday. My garden used to have its first killing frost by mid September -- one disastrous early gardening year ended on Aug. 30. This year my tomatoes, cucumbers and other fragile plants survived until Oct. 20. This year I returned from a six week tour of the western National Parks on Oct. 6 -- fully confident that late crops I planted before I left would survive at least until my return because it has been rare in recent years to have a severe frost before mid October.
There is some dispute about what is causing the warming; and a great deal of debate about what the consequences will be on different areas of the world.
If as some scientists speculate, the pattern of ocean currents are impacted, global warming could trigger a new ice age in western Europe and possibly New England. A few centimeters of extra ice thickness on Greenland, while at the same time Greenland coastal glaciers are melting, proves nothing, nor indicates nothing -- other than that some scientific speculations about the specific impacts of global warming are correct and others are not.
Weary
I've lived in my house on Maine's midcoast since 43 years ago this coming Thursday. My garden used to have its first killing frost by mid September -- one disastrous early gardening year ended on Aug. 30....A few centimeters of extra ice thickness on Greenland, while at the same time Greenland coastal glaciers are melting, proves nothing, nor indicates nothing -- other than that some scientific speculations about the specific impacts of global warming are correct and others are not.
My point exactly...the earth has been everything from a total iceball to a totally tropical super-greenhouse with 50 foot ferns etc. etc. all as a result of it's own natural cycles and fluctuations. Climate change, extinctions, coastline changes, whatever have been going on since long before any of us got here...I've noticed that weather has been ever so slightly different in my area too over the last say, 20 years. My amateur observations, plus yours add up to a hill of beans. I'm just not convinced by all the catastrophe-models, and there are plenty of holes in every theory that tries to predict these things. And I am not saying that it's not happening, I'm just saying I am against this kind of religious green movement that would shut down industry and se up all sorts of economic constraints that ultimately hold back the development that is the only real hope for keeping us able to adapt and deal with whatever disasters actually await us.
But I hope you agree that sometimes technological "advances" backfire or have negative consequences. Was Hitler the worst mass murderer in history because he was the worst person or because he had the technological means not available to Ghengis Khan, Ivan the Terrible, Attila the Hun, etc.? Since virtually the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, humankind has wrestled with the two faces of technology.
I hate to say it like this but...Guns don't kill people, people kill people. As I said earlier, man's ability to use his innovations as they should be used, his control over his own inventions, his evolution of conciousness which sometimes doesn't quite keep pace with his clever inventiveness...all this is the key issue. I believe that we are now on a cusp of evolution and species development. Technology, social evolution, the psychology of adaptation taken in directions it has never really gone before, sort of the transition into adulthood (sociologically speaking) are the challenges of our race. Can we handle becoming masters of force and nature? Will nuclear power and genetic engineering and supertelecommunications give us the means to finally utterly destroy ourselves? Or will we follow in the path of our ancestors, from the guys who invented agriculture and the solar caledar on through to the copernican revolution, then the newtonian revolution the quantum revolution of the last century and adapt and innovate our way through the future as we have in the past. Our track record indicates that we will.
I'm also a diabetic, and without the intervention of science I'd be dead. Some argue that this kind of thing is making us weaker, but not me.
bfitz commented:
(to me) Your another one of those self haters that can't stand the thought of his own species acendance,
and...
I think a little name calling so long as it isn't really mean or specifically personal is okay, and I do'nt do it half as much as that skeemer guy,
Yikes!
I love me!...honest I do...and I hope like hell the good life goes on and on and on for me and you and your kids. If you have time look up some of my posts. My employer, Delphi, just declared bankruptcy. All those things (High wages, full paid health care, cost of living allowance, umpteen paid days off, etc., etc., etc.)the UAW demanded for its membership are in jeopardy...let alone the jobs themselves. I see lawyers plastering my phone book and TV begging people to bring them personal injury cases. There are doctors retiring because they can't or don't want to pay the high liability insurance. GM's hourly are already starting to contribute to the health care costs. Schools can't fire bad teachers and keep good ones...I don't know, I like optimists and maybe I've just been exposed to the worst of society but this doesn't sound like things are getting better to me. Wasn't this post about trying to protect our environment...if I'm so selfish what should I care if it's still around when I'm gone?
Where I break company with conservatives is mostly on religion, so I suspect that's where you're coming from. Refresh my memory on the name calling and if, warranted I'll apologize.
No apology necessary, I was referring to your mostly hilarious teasing on the Warren Doyle thread. I especially liked the Edward Abbey jab, that should be reproduced here actually...since he came up a few posts ago...
You grow your own what?
BTW, what if you're the guy Abbey would have rater killed than the snake?
That was a zinger.
As far as hatin yourself, I must've thought you were siding with the prophets of doom I've been debating with on this thread, as long as you're on my side I won't harrass you...but be careful...
I like optimists and maybe I've just been exposed to the worst of society but this doesn't sound like things are getting better to me.
Things go up and down for people from year to year , day to day, even, but as a race, we've accomplished more and more ..."Ad astra per aspera"...know what I mean?
bfitz asked me:
..."Ad astra per aspera"...know what I mean?
I'm still trying to figure out "Stupid is as stupid does."
I like SMS (even if he is socialist) and I'm sure he'll have an interesting comeback. We do share some values. Hey SMS do you like The Spinners?
Remember, if God hadn't given us all ********, you couldn't call me one.
SGT Rock
10-23-2005, 16:55
Oh you would like SMS. For a socialist he can also be very conservative. In fact, I doubt I would call him a typical socialist at all, the label doesn't seem to fit him.
How about Hippy hillbilly?
Funny thing about hippies, they're the best example of my idea of capitalism at its finest. (if you've ever spent a few weeks in grateful dead show parking lots you'll know what I mean...)
:p I guess I should use the funny icons from now on so everyone knows I'm half tongue in cheek (when I'm not completely foot in mouth...) :datz
Skeemer replied:
I love me!...honest I do...
There are a few things I don't like and would like to change.
I've noticed that weather has been ever so slightly different in my area too over the last say, 20 years. My amateur observations, plus yours add up to a hill of beans. I'm just not convinced by all the catastrophe-models, and there are plenty of holes in every theory that tries to predict these things. And I am not saying that it's not happening, I'm just saying I am against this kind of religious green movement that would shut down industry and se up all sorts of economic constraints that ultimately hold back the development that is the only real hope for keeping us able to adapt and deal with whatever disasters actually await us..
Of course, casual observations by you and me prove nothing. I mentioned my observations only because what I have observed is what everyone who cares, scientists or not, has observed over the past several decades.
The exceptions are those whose minds can't separate the "religious green community" with the scientists who have observed the facts.
One fact that has been floating around the scientific community for more than a century is that it is CO2 that keeps the earth warm enough for human life to have evolved. Since CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing, it seems logical to my unscientific mind -- and to the minds of most serious scientists -- that this additional CO2 probably would make the earth even warmer.
Obviously, there are confounding speculations dealing with feedbacks such as increased warming-induced cloud cover, which tends to reflect some solar energy.
As near as I can tell, the overwhemling majority of folks in the scientific community believe that the earth is warming and at least some of that warming is a result of human activities. The contrary view seems largely restricted to scientists who are in the employ of those who are getting rich from the status quo of energy consumption.
I'm not particularly surprised by the latter. My job for 35 years required me to attend many environmental hearings before regulatory agencies. An early observation that did not change over the years was that one can always find a lawyer and a scientist to tell you what you want to hear.
Weary
Blue Jay
10-23-2005, 23:23
... the population explosion is just beginning, and it took a million years for us to get to a billion people, and it took another hundred to get to 5.5 billion. They all come first. Without the intervention of human technology to both engineer and maintain the "wild" (sadly, I don't think that word will completely apply...) ecosystems, feed the populations etc. we will indeed crash and burn. So what I'm saying is, if you truly love your fellow man, promoting the kind of technological and economic development you seem to detest is the best hope for success we have, and considering how well we've done with everything else, I think it will.
Your own population figures prove my point. You have not named a single item of the fictional "technological and economic development" that will put a dent in humans ability to breed or genetically engineer themselves out of existence. There is always hope, but it cannot come from the cause of the problem. Humans could wake up, it could happen. Global warming has been proven using your beloved technology and science. Are humans doing something about it, a few, not enough to warrent a bet on it. I actually with a little luck, I think I will get to check out myself before humanity does it to us.
Your own population figures prove my point. You have not named a single item of the fictional "technological and economic development" that will put a dent in humans ability to breed or genetically engineer themselves out of existence. There is always hope, but it cannot come from the cause of the problem. Humans could wake up, it could happen. Global warming has been proven using your beloved technology and science. Are humans doing something about it, a few, not enough to warrent a bet on it. I actually with a little luck, I think I will get to check out myself before humanity does it to us.
Ah...well...f!#k it, then. What do you think it'll be? There probably isn't even enough time left for global warming to do its work...(I don't think that would really kill us off anyway, just make us uncomfortable, and mabye invade canada for the temperate real estate...)mabye the terrorists really will let loose a killer virus...or mabye it won't be us at all, it might be a comet or a gigantic solar flare. :sun
Blue Jay
10-24-2005, 07:53
You have not named a single item of the fictional "technological and economic development" that will put a dent in humans ability to breed or genetically engineer themselves out of existence.
Just as I thought, you pulled your entire argument out of your ***.
You have not named a single item of the fictional "technological and economic development" that will put a dent in humans ability to breed or genetically engineer themselves out of existence.
Just as I thought, you pulled your entire argument out of your ***.
In fact, we breed ourselves into existence, not out. So far more of us exist than ever before and numbers are rising. This of course, is because we are so good at surviving and and prospering. As far as genetic engineering goes...I don't even know what you are talking about, it hasn't hurt anyone a bit, and ultimately will be yet another victory we add to our list when we use it to, for instance, grow food under the ocean and other previously inhospitable environments, or adapt our offspring to the sweltering heat brought about by natural global warming cycles :sun . Perhaps you would prefer it if I was rooting for humanity's demise, but there's no sign that popultion will be diminishing anytime soon, we are far too resilient and resourceful. I actually just ignored that part of your statement because I felt it was self evident that it didn't warrant any specific response, I just thought it was libzombie blathering :jump .
It is not the strongest of the species that will survive, or the most intelligent. It is the one most adaptable to change.
Charles Darwin
fictional "technological and economic development
Look around you, dude, its everywhere. You are sitting in front of it right now. Why do you think so poorly of the most succesful, beautiful, lifeform ever (known) to exist? How long do you think this global warming thing is gonna take to kill us off anyway? Considering we adapted to the ice age, and every other obstacle nature has thrown our way, before we even had any bigtime inventions except for mabye some primitive beginnings of verbal language, certainly no writing, mabye some cave pictographs. You guys are so way off what is really going on its hard to even argue with you. Quit being so programmed with species self hatred and enjoy being one of us.
P.S. I warrant surviving global warming will be easier that surviving the ice ages. Man I love this edit button! :clap
Tha Wookie
10-24-2005, 10:45
Funny thing about hippies, they're the best example of my idea of capitalism at its finest. (if you've ever spent a few weeks in grateful dead show parking lots you'll know what I mean...)
...except that if you'd not looked like an undercover cop, you would have seen that it is not a system based on money, like capitalism. It's about trade of goods and services produced by community members. It's a legitimate (well, not literally) sub-culture all its own that defies labelling.
Also, in terms of your technological mantra, where you mistakingly assume that nature lovers do not embrace technology, check this out:
It's the people that might be labelled "hippies" that fuel technology advances for future systems. It's the mass conglomerate machine that makes technology just to keep the current system still chugging and consuming.
Look at alternative energy. Solar cars, wind power, solar homes, passive solar construction, independent systems, biodiesel, on-demand water hearters, earthships, and so on.... all pioneered and supported by "hippies". Why? because these things help people connect with nature, with less dependency on our corrupt government and its systems.
Be careful when you lump "technology" in one category.
...except that if you'd not looked like an undercover cop, you would have seen that it is not a system based on money, like capitalism. It's about trade of goods and services produced by community members. It's a legitimate (well, not literally) sub-culture all its own that defies labelling.
Also, in terms of your technological mantra, where you mistakingly assume that nature lovers do not embrace technology, check this out:
It's the people that might be labelled "hippies" that fuel technology advances for future systems. It's the mass conglomerate machine that makes technology just to keep the current system still chugging and consuming.
Look at alternative energy. Solar cars, wind power, solar homes, passive solar construction, independent systems, biodiesel, on-demand water hearters, earthships, and so on.... all pioneered and supported by "hippies". Why? because these things help people connect with nature, with less dependency on our corrupt government and its systems.
Be careful when you lump "technology" in one category.
Dude, I lived on that lot, and the system was based on money. Occasionally a grilled cheese sandwich or bag of weed was exchanged in lieu of cash, but the objective was cash. Now, the social environment was a bit more warm and fuzzy occasionally, but overall, whether we were selling t-shirts, kind veggie burritoes, or vials of acid, our main objective was hotel room money. Don't kid yourself. But do share my hotel room...
As far as technology goes, I am well aware of the role many hippies play in advancing it.
...except that if you'd not looked like an undercover cop, you would have seen that it is not a system based on money, like capitalism. It's about trade of goods and services produced by community members. It's a legitimate (well, not literally) sub-culture all its own that defies labelling.
Oh, I get it, if you looked like a cop they would have pretended not to be exchanging money so as not to attract attention
There are subculture within subcultures...especially amongst deadheads, which many aren't actually hippies, come to think of it. (like me! although I do love smokin tha reefer. Fortunately there was enough Iron Maiden around my high school to keep me well rounded.) Can't be a guitar player and not love jerry...
No...wait...I realize you were saying I looked like an undercover cop. Got it now...trust me, my hair was long, my face was fuzzy, and I was more terrified of cops than even the average lot-dweller...believe me.
Also, in terms of your technological mantra, where you mistakingly assume that nature lovers do not embrace technology, check this out:
...And, dude, I am a nature lover! And a trail hiker! So...I already knew that.
I know you wouldn't even believe me if I told you I roadied for Bob Weir's band Ratdog twice in the last year.
Just Jeff
10-24-2005, 11:15
you would have seen that it is not a system based on money, like capitalism.
Capitalism is based on a free market exchange of goods. Money is simply the medium of exchange. You can exchange widgets or weed...it's still supply and demand.
If money is the root of all evil, what is the root of money? Creativity, production, and the desire to improve one's lot in life created money....money simply greases the wheels of progress by making exchange easier. So are those things the geneses of evil? Dangerous thoughts you have there, Wookie! :)
Again, if some people choose to become enslaved to their created environment (money), that is independent of the fact that a monetary system has substantially improved our lives.
Tha Wookie
10-24-2005, 11:28
Capitalism is based on a free market exchange of goods. Money is simply the medium of exchange. You can exchange widgets or weed...it's still supply and demand.
If money is the root of all evil, what is the root of money? Creativity, production, and the desire to improve one's lot in life created money....money simply greases the wheels of progress by making exchange easier. So are those things the geneses of evil? Dangerous thoughts you have there, Wookie! :)
Again, if some people choose to become enslaved to their created environment (money), that is independent of the fact that a monetary system has substantially improved our lives.
I never said money was evil. I'm just saying that the dead lots were not structured as capitalism. There was a lack of structure -that's what made it what it was. But I agree that the external forces were there too. Yes, there were a lot of people just to sell drugs and make cash, but for the majority, the purpose was to get the next show (money, trade, good wheel appearing on the side of the road -whatever!) -and maybe get in! :D
It was NOT about forcing market pressure on the falafel guy to put back to the spagetti line!
Tha Wookie
10-24-2005, 11:29
As far as technology goes, I am well aware of the role many hippies play in advancing it.
Oh, I get it, if you looked like a cop they would have pretended not to be exchanging money so as not to attract attention
There are subculture within subcultures...especially amongst deadheads, which many aren't actually hippies, come to think of it. (like me! although I do love smokin tha reefer. Fortunately there was enough Iron Maiden around my high school to keep me well rounded.) Can't be a guitar player and not love jerry...
No...wait...I realize you were saying I looked like an undercover cop. Got it now...trust me, my hair was long, my face was fuzzy, and I was more terrified of cops than even the average lot-dweller...believe me.
I think a before/after picture is in order here!;)
smokymtnsteve
10-24-2005, 16:00
In fact, we breed ourselves into existence, not out. So far more of us exist than ever before and numbers are rising. This of course, is because we are so good at surviving and and prospering. As far as genetic engineering goes...I don't even know what you are talking about, it hasn't hurt anyone a bit, and ultimately will be yet another victory we add to our list when we use it to, for instance, grow food under the ocean and other previously inhospitable environments, or adapt our offspring to the sweltering heat brought about by natural global warming cycles :sun . Perhaps you would prefer it if I was rooting for humanity's demise, but there's no sign that popultion will be diminishing anytime soon, we are far too resilient and resourceful. I actually just ignored that part of your statement because I felt it was self evident that it didn't warrant any specific response, I just thought it was libzombie blathering :jump .
dude,,,what was the last species that dominated the earth?? the were very sucessful breeding, surviving,etc.
DINOSAURS DUDE,,,DINOSAURS!
If money is the root of all evil, what is the root of money?
Money isn't the root of all evil, the love of money is.... Or so we've been told.
Footslogger
10-24-2005, 16:57
Money isn't the root of all evil, the love of money is.... Or so we've been told.=============================
YUP ...Capitalism is a great system but it lends itself to GREED among those motivated by having more of it than others.
'Slogger
smokymtnsteve
10-24-2005, 17:04
=============================
YUP ...Capitalism is a great system but it lends itself to GREED among those motivated by having more of it than others.
'Slogger
Great for who..the capitalist??? or the wage slave??
the enviorment?? or the roadbuilder developer?
the quick buck guy that rides his rental property into the ground,,then sells to walmart?
or the honest landlord that maintains the property?
MoBeach42
10-24-2005, 18:34
Brilliant Steve, simply Brilliant.
Great for who..the capitalist??? or the wage slave??
the enviorment?? or the roadbuilder developer?
the quick buck guy that rides his rental property into the ground,,then sells to walmart?
or the honest landlord that maintains the property?
I love the phrase "wage slave." Mostly because one of it's biggest proponents was John C. Calhoun. Yes, that Calhoun - the pro-slavery guy. He argued that Slavery in the south was better than capitalism in the North. Now, he was a bit biased - but it wasn't like the assessment of the mentality of the North was too far off.
dude,,,what was the last species that dominated the earth?? the were very sucessful breeding, surviving,etc.
DINOSAURS DUDE,,,DINOSAURS!
So what you're saying is, that since they were so successful, and we are so much more adaptive that they were, that we are bound to be even more successful? Yes, I agree.
smokymtnsteve
10-24-2005, 19:13
Brilliant Steve, simply Brilliant.
I love the phrase "wage slave." Mostly because one of it's biggest proponents was John C. Calhoun. Yes, that Calhoun - the pro-slavery guy. He argued that Slavery in the south was better than capitalism in the North. Now, he was a bit biased- but it wasn't like the assessment of the mentality of the North was too far off.
all you have to lose is your CHAINS (store job) ;)
I think a before/after picture is in order here!
Okay okay, comin up soon, in the meantime here's the "after" shot.
http://gallery.backcountry.net/billville-traildays05/adm
I guess I do look like an undercover cop! Except for the Saxon T-shirt. There's a reward if you've ever heard of Saxon.
Great for who..the capitalist??? or the wage slave??
the enviorment?? or the roadbuilder developer?
the quick buck guy that rides his rental property into the ground,,then sells to walmart?
or the honest landlord that maintains the property?
There is a difference between robber baron exploitationism and honest capitalism. I for one am glad for the oppurtunity...never been a slave of any kind. You're just talkin silly talk.
smokymtnsteve
10-24-2005, 19:30
There is a difference between robber baron exploitationism and honest capitalism. I for one am glad for the oppurtunity...never been a slave of any kind. You're just talkin silly talk.
honest capitalism ..like ENRON??
big uns eat little uns,,,the old dinosaur will crush U,,,,
most Amerikans are DEBT slaves and with our current president and adminstration we are ALL becoming debt slaves,,,even our future generations who are being born already enslaved in this debt,, ,,,
silly talk?? yeah ,right debt slave, now back to work :-?
Just Jeff
10-24-2005, 20:31
honest capitalism ..like ENRON??
Yeah...so there's a bad one. Let's judge them all from that one.
most Amerikans are DEBT slaves and with our current president and adminstration we are ALL becoming debt slavesHow so? I have a little bit of personal debt - not a slave to it by any means. For the last several years, I've gotten back more in tax refunds than I paid in taxes - so I'm not a slave to the national debt.
Besides - the debt companies NEED you to pay them. They depend on us paying our debts. If we were to all stop paying tomorrow, we'd still have the goods and they'd go bankrupt. Who's the slave?
Don't talk about the Fight Club.
..like ENRON??
They are up on charges and will end up in jail. Thats not what we'd call a representative sample.
Yeah...so there's a bad one. Let's judge them all from that one
They always do that kind of stuff.
most Amerikans are DEBT slaves
You mean I have to work for the stuff I have? !! ....Damn you Bush!!!
blindeye
10-24-2005, 21:03
Sadly skeemer I don't have the time right now to tell you on how many levels I agree with you.
I am blindeye, hope to hear from you soon.
thru-hike sobo 2007
blindeye:banana
Blue Jay
10-25-2005, 09:11
I don't even know what you are talking about
My point exactly, Polly.
"I don't even know what you are talking about"...
My point exactly, Polly.
So then, you will explain to me the terrible damage that genetic engineering has wreaked upon us, oh wise one?
The percentage of taxes paid that goes towards national forest and parks is negligible. When it comes to taxes everyone pays for things they don't use, desire or agree with, that's the nature of the beast.
I agree, but that doesn't make it right. Theft is theft.
. As it is now, we're pumping billions of tax $$'s into Iraq when are own infrastructure is crumpling and funds withheld, but since Bush is running record deficits nobody notices. Don't worry, your kids will.
I totally agree.
Blue Jay
10-31-2005, 08:20
So then, you will explain to me the terrible damage that genetic engineering has wreaked upon us, oh wise one?
Since you have NEVER on even a single post, cited a single fact, you don't deserve this answer and in fact will not be able to understand it in any way, but I'll bite.
Corn, as humans developed it, after thousands of years, is now extinct. The engineered kind wiped it out, with pollen distribution on air currents around the world. The new frankencorn was not tested in any way, by your god, technology, prior to it's release. We all are now guinea pigs, long term effects are completely unknown. Maybe it won't hurt us, maybe it will, NO ONE knows. One by one, almost over night, each one of the products we eat will be changed, no fall back position, no safety net. I know, as the ultimate blindfolded Pollyanna, you believe everything the government and corporations tell you without question, oh ignorant one.
One more, your beloved, greed driven scientists recently recreated the flu that killed millions at the turn of the previous century. We all know things NEVER escape labs, like gypsy moths, plant viruses or hundreds of other living things idiots like your heros have monkeyed with in the past, yea right.
So far we've escaped, but your heros will keep trying.
Before you again use your constant Polly defense.
I am not against responsible scientific research, in fact, it is now required to counter the increase of insane scientific experiments that are currently being conducted on us.
MoBeach42
10-31-2005, 19:37
One thing that I'm trying to comprehend in this whole discussion is the people who are so pissed off about government involvement and technology. We're hikers, aren't we?
1) The Appalachian Trail would not exist in anything approaching is current wilderness form if it weren't for government involvement.
2) What is it that motivates you to get on the trail? For me it's getting away from all the complicated B.S. of the modern world that is obsessed with STUFF and connecting with what is really important. For me what is important that is amplified on the trail is friendship and community and living simply and working hard to achieve a goal and being satisfied with a job well done.
3) The great proponants of technology in the middle of the 20th centry were certain that all this technology would give us significantly more free time. But it hasn't - we now work longer hours for less money than we did several decades ago. Sure we have more crap, but wouldn't you rather have more time to hike?
Corn, as humans developed it, after thousands of years, is now extinct. The engineered kind wiped it out, with pollen distribution on air currents around the world. .
Do you have references?
Since you have NEVER on even a single post, cited a single fact, you don't deserve this answer and in fact will not be able to understand it in any way, but I'll bite.
Do you mean I don't give little weblinks to sites that support my opinions? Because I do that sometimes, though not as often as you. As for facts here are some I have posted recently:
If you'd care to remember any points for future responses here are some key elements of my "argument" re: global warming.
1. There is a debate within the scientific community.
2. This debate is fueled as much by politics as by science.
4. The earth has undergone drastic carbon dioxide related climate change in the past, without human activities playing any role. There is no reason to think that such events would not happen again in the course of time, no matter what we humans do.
But...
5. Humanity is a capable and resourceful lifeform that, with only the most basic of technological advances (fire) managed to survive one of the most inhospitable environments this planet has ever produced, the ice ages.
Here is an opinion, but also an argument supported by facts:
6. This is the key point: All this considered, the doom and destruction spewed like fire and brimstone from a preachers mouth that you almost seem to hope for to punish your fellow humans for sins that exist only in your mind, seems to me to be a sort of mania that is, I suppose, the main characteristic of a libzombie.
Are you beginning to see how this works?
Corn, as humans developed it, after thousands of years, is now extinct. The engineered kind wiped it out, with pollen distribution on air currents around the world.
We continued to “develop” it into the form it is in now.
The new frankencorn was not tested in any way, by your god, technology, prior to it's release.
Neither was any of the corn we bred in ages past. Except by eating it. Its still corn.
We all are now guinea pigs, long term effects are completely unknown.
Yes they are. We have examined the chemical make-up of the corn and it contains nothing toxic, but does contain bigger, better , more robust kernels and more of them.
Maybe it won't hurt us, maybe it will, NO ONE knows
So you are saying that there is no indication currently that it is hurting or will hurt us.
One by one, almost over night, each one of the products we eat will be changed, no fall back position, no safety net. I know, as the ultimate blindfolded Pollyanna, you believe everything the government and corporations tell you without question, oh ignorant one.
No, I decide for myself based on a rational examination of the available data and my own instincts. I also listen to other peoples arguments when they are rational and think about them.
One more, your beloved, greed driven scientists recently recreated the flu that killed millions at the turn of the previous century. We all know things NEVER escape labs, like gypsy moths, plant viruses or hundreds of other living things idiots like your heros have monkeyed with in the past, yea right. So far we've escaped, but your heros will keep trying.
Well, you might have something there. I have said the key issue is our control of our own inventions. Here’s a quote:
Science has provided us with the understanding to tap natural sources such as petroleum, sunlight, hydrogen, nuclear power, genetic engineering, (which will feed our hungry no matter what the europeans say about it) that are as plentyful as the universe is big. As for the unfolding future, there are guideposts and warnings here. The ultimate problem is man's control of his own inventions -- not only the minor ones, like the internet and the atom bomb, but the major inventions -- language, culture and technology.
Before you again use your constant Polly defense.
I am not against responsible scientific research, in fact, it is now required to counter the increase of insane scientific experiments that are currently being conducted on us.
I’m glad you’are not against “responsible” scientific research. Does that mean useless or biased? Or only research that supports your pet theories and prejudices? You seem to think it is "now required to counter..." our mistakes somehow...does that mean you now think it can save us? That it wasn't necessary before because ignorance is bliss or some such thing?
Just Jeff
10-31-2005, 23:49
3) The great proponants of technology in the middle of the 20th centry were certain that all this technology would give us significantly more free time. But it hasn't - we now work longer hours for less money than we did several decades ago. Sure we have more crap, but wouldn't you rather have more time to hike?
Not true - you can now meet your basic needs with very little work. The fact that you use your free time to work for more crap instead of hiking doesn't mean you don't have that option. How do you think people on this site thru-hike?
Tha Wookie
11-01-2005, 09:39
American Hiking Society’sCapitol Trails Broadcast
E-Trails Alert for Hikers
October 2005, No. 85
Sign the Citizen’s Petition to Help Protect Our Last Roadless Forests! (http://www.net.org/petition.php?partner=AHS)
On May 5, the Bush administration repealed the widely supported Roadless Area Conservation Rule, opening nearly sixty million acres of America's last wild National Forests to logging, road construction, mining, oil exploration, and other forms of development.
Under the new policy, if governors wish to have roadless areas within their state protected, they must complete a burdensome petition process and file their recommendations with political appointees at the Department of Agriculture. The federal government is free to accept, modify or reject these petitions, while elected officials and citizens outside those states will have no say about the fate of these shared national treasures.
The many ecological benefits of roadless areas — such as large, undisturbed landscapes, improving air and water quality, and preserving habitat for plant and animal species — are all important to hikers and the hiking experience. Roadless areas provide outstanding backcountry recreational opportunities and include thousands of trails across the country.
American Hiking Society and conservationists throughout the country are joining together to file an official petition with the Bush administration to demand the reinstatement of the 2001 rule that limited logging and road-building on nearly sixty million acres of national forests. The petition will be filed under the auspices of the Administrative Procedures Act, which allows citizens to request that the government, issue, amend, or revoke federal rules.
We believe that:
America's last roadless National Forests belong to each and every American and all our remaining roadless areas should be protected, completely and permanently through reinstatement of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule of 2001.
Join the Petition
If you agree with the statement above, please join your fellow Americans and sign the petition TODAY! (http://www.net.org/petition.php?partner=AHS) It's quick, easy, and can help ensure our pristine National Forests remain wild for future generations. A petition with all of the signatures will be presented to President Bush and the Department of Agriculture. Additionally, a copy of the petition will be delivered to your Governor.
Tell Your Friends & Family
We need citizens from every state and all walks of life to sign the petition and join the effort to protect our last wild forests. Please take a moment and forward the petition around and help us generate many more signatures.
Click here to learn more about this issue. (http://www.americanhiking.org/policy/current/roadless.html)
Thank you!
Blue Jay
11-01-2005, 10:39
Well, you might have something there. I have said the key issue is our control of our own inventions.
There is absolutely no control of our own inventions. Nuclear Weapons, yea we have good control over that. The monsters who recreated the flu that killed millions, posted a how-to on the web. Oh, yes we have control.
Frankencorn is not bigger, you idiot, it can withstand pesticides. The pesticide companies developed it to sell pesticide. You claim to advance science yet know less than nothing about scientific developments.
Well for starters, I've tried to say this several times. Unfortunately, each time threads have been abandoned, or other technical things have interfered.
Anyway. I spent a weekend at a two-day ATC planning session. The critical message I came away with is that the money that is funneled through the Appalachian Trail Conservancy to the local clubs, to the trail is being slashed 45% next year (2006) by Congress
i'M NOT SURE WHY. But it seems that part of the reason may be tax reductions to what us Liberals think of as the "wealthiest" Americans, and miscelaneous other complications.
I listened to comments last night from Sen. John McClain in respomse to questions from Charlie Rose. McClain seemed think that the first "cutting" priority should be the $24 billion congress added to the highway bill.
Since if I remember right, the entire federal budget for the Appalachain Trail is in the low single numbers -- $2 million? $3 million. I truly forget.
Regardless, of the total amount. We could give everyone a several thousand dollar rebate if all government would be slashed the same as the AT.
Weary
Jack Tarlin
11-01-2005, 23:02
The gentleman in question is John McCain, Weary, not "McLain." Mr. McCain has been serving Arizona very ably in the Senate since 1986.
The gentleman in question is John McCain, Weary, not "McLain." Mr. McCain has been serving Arizona very ably in the Senate since 1986.
HMMM. Jack is back into checking typos. Many thanks Jack.
Weary
Jack Tarlin
11-01-2005, 23:15
He's also a Republican you might actually come to like, Weary. As far as going after out-of-whack spending (including things like Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens' 223-Million dollar bridge to nowhere) it's people like McCain that are leading the effort.
He's also a Republican you might actually come to like, Weary.
He's about the only one you could possibly like. Too bad he stuck his head up Bush's butt at the RNC conventions after being smeared by him and Rove in 2000.
No spine there.... and then there's no one left.
Jack Tarlin
11-01-2005, 23:37
Actually, Sly, McCain's spine is fine. He can't raise his arms above his head without enduring a great deal of pain, due to injuries sustained while being tortured half to death forty years ago, but there's nothing wrong with his spine.
Senator McCain is also about the finest man I've ever met, Sly, and your comments are unworthy of you.
Actually, Sly, McCain's spine is fine. He can't raise his arms above his head without enduring a great deal of pain, due to injuries sustained while being tortured half to death forty years ago, but there's nothing wrong with his spine.
Senator McCain is also about the finest man I've ever met, Sly, and your comments are unworthy of you.
I don't doubt his heroism, just his politics.
Jack Tarlin
11-02-2005, 00:30
Sly, I doubt you KNOW anything about his politics, so I'm not sure how justified you are in doubting them. I'm quite sure that if I asked you flat out where he stood on any number of issues, you'd have absolutely no idea, and wouldn't be able to answer without checking his website first. In short, he has all sorts of positions on all sorts of things that you know NOTHING about.
You're "doubting" his politics simply because he's a Republican, and not because you really know where he stands on any number of different issues.
This isn't "doubt". It's merely ignorance.
LOL... He's a goof ball, I listen to him on Imus all the time.
MoBeach42
11-02-2005, 00:40
I don't doubt his heroism, just his politics.
For example....???
Here's an example: John McCain is probably going to be almost single handedly responsible for forcing the Bush administration to abandon its policy of permitting torture.
Not because he's the only one who cares, but because he's the only one who cares and is in a position to do something about it.
See information here (http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=1589&issue_id=70).
To judge someone before you know something about them is what we call prejudice.
Jack Tarlin
11-02-2005, 00:43
Thank you, Beach. This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about.
I'm sorry Sly thinks that it's stances like this that make McCain a "goofball.
And no, this isn't about prejudice.
Like I said, it's about ignorance.
MoBeach42
11-02-2005, 00:47
And no, this isn't about prejudice.
Like I said, it's about ignorance.
I agree with you that it's about ignorance - I think the two go hand in hand and are almost inseperable. If people KNEW they wouldn't pre-judge. But we already agree.
Oh dear... and now we've spilled over onto page 12.
Drum Stick
11-02-2005, 07:51
The ear of corn that has been kicked around here 'may be' smaller but the yield per acre has never been higher thanks in part to researchers at UNE (I am pretty sure UNE).
I had a feeling the list of 'genetic science gone bad' would be a short one. All science is not good science but it seems to me that 'good science' vastly out weighs 'bad science'. I work with genetic scientists who are working hard to improve life. But until researchers figure out how heart and artery disease works (for instance), and how to alter the disease process, we will neeed artificial hearts. Science!
Wookie: Is there no compromise on the roadless rule? I read somewhere (can't take it as fact though) that 5-10% of the area in question are ripe with energy resources (gas & oil). I wish I had more time to look into things like this but medical research has me going all out these days. I gotta run because I have a date with some surgeons this morning.
See yas
Drum Stick
Blue Jay
11-02-2005, 08:04
All science is not good science but it seems to me that 'good science' vastly out weighs 'bad science'. I work with genetic scientists who are working hard to improve life. But until researchers figure out how heart and artery disease works (for instance), and how to alter the disease process, we will neeed artificial hearts. Science!
Drum Stick
Yea, someone with a rational view of science. Medical science is for the most part advancing responsibly. Artificial organs and stem cell research are excellent examples. It's unlikely an artificial heart is going to "escape" the lab and cause unforseen permanent damage.
shades of blue
11-02-2005, 08:20
Wow...
McCain....There's still a lot I don't know about him but...... he has split with his Repbulican counterparts when he disagreed with them and he wouldn't allow himself to be a used by democrats when he disagreed with the repbulicans. I have a lot of research to do about Senator McCain but what I see, I like. Is he a "goofball", no, he's a serious person with serious views and mostly expresses them rather well. I can respect someone who "for the most part" says what he thinks and stands up for what he believes...and who isn't an idiot. And I'm a freakin democrat here...
Tha Wookie
11-02-2005, 09:04
Sly, I doubt you KNOW anything about his politics, so I'm not sure how justified you are in doubting them. I'm quite sure that if I asked you flat out where he stood on any number of issues, you'd have absolutely no idea, and wouldn't be able to answer without checking his website first. In short, he has all sorts of positions on all sorts of things that you know NOTHING about.
You're "doubting" his politics simply because he's a Republican, and not because you really know where he stands on any number of different issues.
This isn't "doubt". It's merely ignorance.
Yeah, Sly, remember that Jack keeps up on his 6-tabloid-day diet so he knows what REALLY goes on in politics....:D
Just try and ignore the strings.
Tha Wookie
11-02-2005, 09:22
Wookie: Is there no compromise on the roadless rule? I read somewhere (can't take it as fact though) that 5-10% of the area in question are ripe with energy resources (gas & oil). I wish I had more time to look into things like this but medical research has me going all out these days. I gotta run because I have a date with some surgeons this morning.
See yas
Drum Stick
That is a good question! To be perfectly honest with you, I'm not familiar with the percents you heard, or how they are derived. But i suspect the roadless rule is just what it says. It's the last line where the pavement and ashpalt and hydological alterations end. But, if you look at the Wilderness Act of 1964, you'll see an exception for every rule after the establishing section. I have not studied the RARE as closely, but I'm sure you can find it on-line.
I will say, however, that if there is an oil or gas reservoir on 5% of the land, then the roads built to reach, construct, extract, and transport the resource can far outreach the 5% area. Many many studies show that roads can severely impact natural processes. Commonly, they have reported changes in wildlife reproduction patterns, distribution, and geneological makeup. A single road can discect thousands of acres into two seperated ecological zones. Numerous hydrology studies show that any road built in a hydrological system becomes part of that system, altering water flow permanently, often even with state-of-the-art water control techniques. This is the same with trails (or any manmade corridor), by the way. But on a much different scale.
Also, from what I understand, our country is not suffering from a lack of energy recources, but rather a lack of refining capacity. Surely our most pristine lands can be spared the passing techonogy of the internal combustion engine.
justusryans
11-02-2005, 10:09
Also, from what I understand, our country is not suffering from a lack of energy recources, but rather a lack of refining capacity. Surely our most pristine lands can be spared the passing techonogy of the internal combustion engine.
I've never been against responsible exploration. In a perfect world there would be enough sustainable natural energy sources, ( hybrid vehicles, wind generators, thermal energy, solar energy). However it's not a perfect world...yet. Until it is, we still need to recognise that this country runs on oil. :o
Yea, someone with a rational view of science...Artificial organs and stem cell research are excellent examples. It's unlikely an artificial heart is going to "escape" the lab and cause unforseen permanent damage.
Hmmm...could you name the last bit of science that "escaped the lab and caused unforseen permanent damage"? You've been watching too many japornimation cartoons, dude. I guess you are saying its ok to modify human genes, just not corn genes?
As for john McCain...was last in his class in the naval academy, so academically he is in the same league as John Kerry and George Bush...somewhaere around a low "c". However like many scholastic underachievers he is very intelligent, agrues his points well and occasionally vehemently (which I like), doesn't take any crap, is against torture because he was tortured alot and saw his fellow captives tortured and murdered when he was held as a prisoner of war in Hanoi for five-and-a-half years, in the infamous Hanoi Hilton. When his North Vietnamese captors discovered he was the son and grandson of admirals, he was offered a chance to be released, probably in an attempt to smear american officials by making it look like it was negotiated under the table, but he refused to break the military code that POWs be released in the order that they are captured, despite the fact that they tried to make it difficult for him to refuse by torture. Thats what I call a hardass. He has a reputation as a renegade politician, putting his own beleifs above "party politics". Any of you who criticize how certain politicians raise and spend money, McCain is your guy. Don't let that R next to his name prejudice you.
I've never been against responsible exploration. In a perfect world there would be enough sustainable natural energy sources, ( hybrid vehicles, wind generators, thermal energy, solar energy). However it's not a perfect world...yet. Until it is, we still need to recognise that this country runs on oil.
Well, we look to future innovations by scientists to relieve our dependance on oil. You forgot to mention nuclear energy, the resource that unlike the ones you did mention, will be the one that fuels our future society.
Pardon me, was I haranguing...oops. I know I said I wouldn't. Sorry.
Jack Tarlin
11-02-2005, 14:59
Bfitz...McCain wasn't actaly last in his class at the Naval Academy. He was merely 894th out of 899. Not bad, eh?
But then again, nine U.S. presidents didn't atend college at all, including Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Truman, and they seem to have done OK.
Oh, and Wook, thanks again for yet another snotty "tabloid" comment. You always seem to dig this up when you have nothing useful to contribute. Of the papers I try and read every day, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, and the local paper, the Valley News, are broadsheets. Of the other three, I read the NY Daily News and the NY Post so as to get a different perspective than that of the Times; for the same reason, I read the Boston Herald, which also covers New England Boston politics and sports as well as the Globe does. I'm sorry you don't like my reading habits, but then again, I never thought to consult you about this.
Note to Wook, Whiteblaze's most outspoken environmentalist: Are you aware that a typical tabloid uses 18% less newsprint than a broadsheet newspaper, as well as less ink? And that partly because of this, alost 50% of Swedish newspapers have switched over to this format?
And Wook, most of the independent, progressive, alternative newspapers in this country are printed in the smaller format, for any number of reasons, so if you want to malign a paper merely because of its format or size, this would also include most of the newspapers you'd likely be in agreement with.
You REALLY need to come up with some new wisecracks, bucko. Your old ones are getting pretty lame.
Jack Tarlin
11-02-2005, 15:13
Back to McCain....anyone really interested in more information about Senator McCain can go to his website (http://mccain.senate.gov) or for specific information on McCain and the Environment, they can go to
http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Issues.ViewIssue&Issue_id=26
justusryans
11-02-2005, 16:31
McCain, 08 Who's on board??
With Condoleeza as VP. It probably will happen that way. I'm on board.
shades of blue
11-02-2005, 17:19
Sorry guys...I like McCain and all, but I don't think I could vote for someone (Rice) who was involved in the Bush admin....too much deception and attacks have gone on. Maybe if she was dumped like Powell was for his beliefs...maybe. Otherwise....to me that would just taint McCain with the current disease of this admin. I know...back to my democratic ways.
I am starting to respect McCain more and more as I actually listen to and read what he has to say (and I am a liberal Democrat!). I think he would have done a much much better job then our current President. I really don't see him leaving the Senate though - he has consolidated way too much power.
The Democratic candidates that we have put forward in the last two elections were weak. (and I didn't vote for either of them in the primaries FYI) And I haven't seen rumors of anyone for the next cycle that excites me either. Can we please have Bill Clinton back for another term or two? At least all he lied about was sex.......and I don't think anyone died because of it.
Jack Tarlin
11-02-2005, 17:58
Personally, I hope he realizes that he doesn't really owe the Republican Party anything, and decides to run as an Independent. While McCain has proven remarkably loyal to his party, some of its leaders (Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Ted Stevens of Alaska, Trent Lott of Mississippi come immediately to mind) represent everything that's wrong with American politics today.
I've been a registered Independent for many years, i.e. I have no set loyalty to any party, and I think a lot of Americans feel the same way. When voting in an election, whether local, state, or Federal, I'll vote for the best man or woman running, regardless of their party affiliation.
I think the Democratic candidate in '08 will be Hillary Clinton, which I think will be both disastrous for the Democrats if she runs, and even more disastrous for the country if she wins.
Right now, I'd like to see McCain running; possible running mates could be folks like Senator Lindsay Graham from South Carolina; Mike DeWine of Ohio, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, or Rudolph Giuliani, former mayor of New York. I don't think Rice will be on the ticket.
McCain will not make any decision until some time next year.
I hope he runs, and I hope he wins.
McCain, 08 Who's on board??
McCain is an excellent Senator and I think he would make a far better President than any Republican that has been nominated in recent years.
But I like to know all the choices before making a commitment. Therefore I'll wait until after the Democratic nominee has been chosen before deciding. Afterall, Democratic Presidents almost uniformly rank among the best in the history of the nation. With that kind of record it surely is unwise to commit ourselves before the names of the Democratic contenders even are known.
Weary
the goat
11-02-2005, 18:09
mccain will never, ever get the republican nomination, not in '08, '12 or '16 for that matter. it simply won't happen, the base won't hear of it, he's simply not conservative enough. his years as an appeasing "maverick" are going to come home to roost. that goes for guliani too. never happen, period.
Jack Tarlin
11-02-2005, 18:16
"....among the best in the history of the Nation"?
Gee, I guess this includes such luminaries as Martin van Buren, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Grover Cleveland. I'd love to see Weary tell us all about their accomplishments.
The failings, particularly foreign policy failings, of such men as Carter and Clinton could also be discussed, but I haven't the time. At least not unless I wanna spend a year doing so. Kennedy and Johnson were responsible for the Vietnam War.....does Weary think this was a good idea?
In short, party affiliation means nothing. There have been plenty of lousy Republican presidents, too.
People should wait and see who's running, and then vote for the most qualified candidte.
I see what you mean goat, but they are crafty. I think they'll be able to sell McCain, especially with Condi along for the ride, to the center, while knowing/hoping that they control the legislature, so there's not much liklihood of backsliding on any groud they've gained on "pet" conservative issues, plus they can count on him to prosecute the war on terror, mabye a bit differently, but just as assiduously, which is key for them, IMO. The fact that he holds such credibility on both sides of the aisle makes him an ideal candidate. I hope we get him or someone similiar or we'll end up with Hillary or worse, I fear. Here's a great fantasy...the two least dispicable people in either party, John McCain and Joe Leiberman as Pres and VP, blows up the left/right stalemate and leads to a new era of sanity! (of course JL would have to be VP...)
justusryans
11-02-2005, 20:56
"....among the best in the history of the Nation"?
Gee, I guess this includes such luminaries as Martin van Buren, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Grover Cleveland. I'd love to see Weary tell us all about their accomplishments.
The failings, particularly foreign policy failings, of such men as Carter and Clinton could also be discussed, but I haven't the time. At least not unless I wanna spend a year doing so. Kennedy and Johnson were responsible for the Vietnam War.....does Weary think this was a good idea?
In short, party affiliation means nothing. There have been plenty of lousy Republican presidents, too.
People should wait and see who's running, and then vote for the most qualified candidte.
Who's the last Republican President who was worth a crap? Without going back to Abraham Lincoln? Didn't think so!
Ronald Raygun: "If you've seen one redwood, you've seen them all." What a dope!
MoBeach42
11-03-2005, 00:04
The ear of corn that has been kicked around here 'may be' smaller but the yield per acre has never been higher....
But here's the thing. Yield may be higher per acre, but that's because you've poured an exponentially higher amount of resources into that acre to get that slightly improved yield.
I was in a conversation with a farmer from Indiana a year ago who had decided to go organic. Why did he go organic? Not because he's a hippy - his family has been farming for several generations. One day a supply hose on a pesticide sprayer busted open and the 10' area on the ground didn't grow a damned thing for five years. That scared him - for his health.
So he went organic. He didn't go organic to capitalize on the rich nitch market - his products aren't labled organic. He's growing corn for cows. It turns out that he can actually remain afloat as an independent small farmer because his overhead is lower. He doesn't have to pay for expensive GM seed. He doesn't have to pay for expencive pesticides that have been designed to work with the GM seed. He fertilizes once a year with a truck of fish processing by-product from the East.
The lesson is that we don't need these fancy GM products because 1) there's aready enough food to feed everyone on earth - it's just poorly distributed, and 2) it wastes MORE resources. This guy is just growing crops like his grandfather did. And there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's better for everyone!
smokymtnsteve
11-03-2005, 00:10
Just to let you know... I'm a registered Republican. They do a great job on our local level. However on the national level they don't seem to do quite as well. As far as Regan and Bush go. Well Bush Senior ran the economy into the dirt, and as far as Regan goes, Well, have you ever heard of Iran Contra?
had Ronnie ever heard of AIDS???...his complete silence and lack of leadership on this issue helped kill many of my friends and nearly killed me!
MoBeach42
11-03-2005, 00:14
Who's the last Republican President who was worth a crap? Without going back to Abraham Lincoln? Didn't think so!
but at least Ike was perceptive:
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted."
If only his party had heeded the warning. Or that anyone of any party with any power had heeded the warning.
Just Jeff
11-03-2005, 00:54
Hrm...I realize this is an environmentally friendly website, but let's weigh this:
Nuclear armageddon vs a tree
Oh please, the USSR was going collapse from it's own weight eventually anyway.
Tha Wookie
11-03-2005, 01:14
Bfitz...McCain wasn't actaly last in his class at the Naval Academy. He was merely 894th out of 899. Not bad, eh?
But then again, nine U.S. presidents didn't atend college at all, including Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Truman, and they seem to have done OK.
Oh, and Wook, thanks again for yet another snotty "tabloid" comment. You always seem to dig this up when you have nothing useful to contribute. Of the papers I try and read every day, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, and the local paper, the Valley News, are broadsheets. Of the other three, I read the NY Daily News and the NY Post so as to get a different perspective than that of the Times; for the same reason, I read the Boston Herald, which also covers New England Boston politics and sports as well as the Globe does. I'm sorry you don't like my reading habits, but then again, I never thought to consult you about this.
Note to Wook, Whiteblaze's most outspoken environmentalist: Are you aware that a typical tabloid uses 18% less newsprint than a broadsheet newspaper, as well as less ink? And that partly because of this, alost 50% of Swedish newspapers have switched over to this format?
And Wook, most of the independent, progressive, alternative newspapers in this country are printed in the smaller format, for any number of reasons, so if you want to malign a paper merely because of its format or size, this would also include most of the newspapers you'd likely be in agreement with.
You REALLY need to come up with some new wisecracks, bucko. Your old ones are getting pretty lame.
Bucko? -You think of that one yourself, or do you have a team of monkeys working around the clock?
Good to see you sticking up for your tabloids. You might be filling your head full of worthless crap that we have to in turn sit through every week, but at least you're saving the environment while you do it.
justusryans
11-03-2005, 08:54
Alright, Alright! Let's play nice! :D
Jack Tarlin
11-03-2005, 15:13
You don't have to sit through any of my posts or thoughts, Wook, and neither does anyone else.
You have the simple option of not reading them.
Bucko, you really can be a hell of a whiner at times.
Incidentaly, three of Britain's best known newspapers have recently switched over to the tabloid format, including The Times of London, which must make it a really horrible, inconsequential paper, right, Wook?
Gray Blazer
11-03-2005, 15:45
I guess I'll stick my foot in this one. I don't hate anyone,but,I'll probably have some enemies after this post.
Libs and dems, please don't give me any garbage until you've read "The Gulag Archipelago ..Vols. I, II, and III" by Alexander Solsynitzen.
I've found that libs and dems are really tolerant of everybody except white christian rebublicans.
Condi for pres. in 08.
I'm blacklisted now.
Bush and the Oil Cos do suck when it comes to the environment.
Spartan Hiker
11-03-2005, 15:52
I'm blacklisted now.
LOL! Consider it a badge of honor.
Tha Wookie
11-03-2005, 16:27
You don't have to sit through any of my posts or thoughts, Wook, and neither does anyone else.
You have the simple option of not reading them.
Bucko, you really can be a hell of a whiner at times.
Incidentaly, three of Britain's best known newspapers have recently switched over to the tabloid format, including The Times of London, which must make it a really horrible, inconsequential paper, right, Wook?
No, Jack, they're all horrible and inconsequential -regardless of shape or material.
You could save us all a lot of time and agony with a monthly subscription to Glamour.
Condi for Prez in 2008? How is she even remotely qualified, besides being a pathological liar....
She mishandled the intel leading to 911 as NSA and has done nothing as Sec of State!
justusryans
11-03-2005, 19:35
Condi is a follower, not a leader. Then again so is GW, Yes Daddy!!
...In short, party affiliation means nothing. ...People should wait and see who's running, and then vote for the most qualified candidte.
Well, Jack, someone who thinks "party affiliation means nothing," simply knows nothing useful about the past century and a quarter of American history. But it is wise to wait to see who's running before closing one's mind."
Weary