View Full Version : Evironmental Terrorism In Maryland
wacocelt
12-13-2004, 18:52
Now I may be mistaken, but didn't you attack a thruhiker a few years ago?
Yes, in fact I did assault someone in a drunken fit. I served my thirty days in jail and payed a healthy fine as well as being villianized by an entire horde of people who have never met me and a select few who decided to attack my character with complete lies and exaggerations of events prior to the crime. I have not had a drink of alcohol since that incident, more than 1 1/2 years ago, my wife and I despite scores of people who swore we'de be seperated within a year, are still happily married and more in love every day.
If you were trying to make a point I missed it, though I welcome you to make more unmitigated and ignorant attacks against me at your leisure.
One or a hundred crimes does not deny a person the right to recognize thier mistakes and shortcomings, make amends and begin a new chapter in thier lives. I have and will continue to be the person that Mt Dew and a select few people on this site know. Be well.
steve hiker
12-13-2004, 18:52
Mags, Jack and others --
I've added a proviso explaining that the letter is not a verbatim transcript of his 1854 speech, but that it probably captures the essense of what he said. I never said it was an original letter.
Whatever Chief Seattle said, I bet he really ruffled some feathers in Washington, given that his speech has been remembered in one form or another for 150 years, and given the virulent efforts to discredit him.
The real issue here is the environment, not Chief Seattle or the nitpicking about the historical accuracy of this document or that. Go back and read the letter. It eloquently expresses the errors of industrial man's attitudes toward the Earth.
SGT Rock
12-13-2004, 19:02
Wacocelt,
Every time I would have the commander impose UCMJ, I use to give a basic little speach about how soldiers getting punished usually went two ways -
They got bitter and decided the man was screwing them and failed to learn from this life experience that could be short and easy but they choose to make hard.
OR
They learned from the experienced, grew up a little, and became a better soldier and a better man. Also, they could tell other young troopers from experience what not to do - often with better authority than the Man could. Sometimes this is harder road, but in the long run it makes things easier.
It would seem to me you took option 2. Did your time, grew up, and looks like you will make it just fine. Anyone that tells you that you have no objective right to say anything because of your past has failed to realize how important a thing you did after the fact. Keep your head up man.
Yes, in fact I did assault someone in a drunken fit. I served my thirty days in jail and payed a healthy fine as well as being villianized by an entire horde of people who have never met me and a select few who decided to attack my character with complete lies and exaggerations of events prior to the crime. I have not had a drink of alcohol since that incident, more than 1 1/2 years ago...
Wacocelt:
I applaud your efforts to get sober and well. I too gave up the booze - about 20 years ago. As we are both painfully aware, first impressions can be lasting. Having said that, I too found it somewhat ironic that you posted what you did regarding this topic - considering what happened on the trail in '03. I liked your words however.
I hope 2005 brings you another good year of sobriety - one day at a time.
Happy Trails!
Rocks 'n Roots
12-14-2004, 00:00
I find it strange that the average Trail user is completely clueless about the Conservation aspect of the AT and incapable of discussing it or how that relates to sprawl...
Mountain Dew
12-14-2004, 01:51
Oh the joy to sit back and watch Tim Rich, Mags, and B. Jack drop the absolute facts down on people only to see these people then make a transparent attempt at avoiding the facts. Brings a smile to my face everytime. Logic and facts coupled with a good speaker is gonna win nine times out of ten my friends so don't fight it ...just give in.
Hey Blue Wacko....For the 10th time..... If you are going to use a big word and make sense learn how to spell the word or atleast be smart enough to use spell check. Those that have seen you post on here for any length of time already know you're an idiot/wacko, but atleast try to fool the new people for a little while. :bse <---reminds me of the one lonely brain cell in your head !
Can you feel the love in here??? ;)
OK, since nobody here apparently knows how to use Google, I dredged up the FIRST version of Seattle's speech, transcribed in 1887. Which, for those of you who did not major in math, is 33 years after the speech was made.
http://www.halcyon.com/arborhts/chiefsea.html
Yonder sky that has wept tears of compassion upon my people for centuries untold, and which to us appears changeless and eternal, may change. Today is fair. Tomorrow it may be overcast with clouds. My words are like the stars that never change. Whatever Seattle says, the great chief at Washington can rely upon with as much certainty as he can upon the return of the sun or the seasons. The white chief says that Big Chief at Washington sends us greetings of friendship and goodwill. This is kind of him for we know he has little need of our friendship in return. His people are many. They are like the grass that covers vast prairies. My people are few. They resemble the scattering trees of a storm-swept plain. The great, and I presume -- good, White Chief sends us word that he wishes to buy our land but is willing to allow us enough to live comfortably. This indeed appears just, even generous, for the Red Man no longer has rights that he need respect, and the offer may be wise, also, as we are no longer in need of an extensive country. http://www.halcyon.com/arborhts/space.gifThere was a time when our people covered the land as the waves of a wind-ruffled sea cover its shell-paved floor, but that time long since passed away with the greatness of tribes that are now but a mournful memory. I will not dwell on, nor mourn over, our untimely decay, nor reproach my paleface brothers with hastening it, as we too may have been somewhat to blame.
http://www.halcyon.com/arborhts/space.gifYouth is impulsive. When our young men grow angry at some real or imaginary wrong, and disfigure their faces with black paint, it denotes that their hearts are black, and that they are often cruel and relentless, and our old men and old women are unable to restrain them. Thus it has ever been. Thus it was when the white man began to push our forefathers ever westward. But let us hope that the hostilities between us may never return. We would have everything to lose and nothing to gain. Revenge by young men is considered gain, even at the cost of their own lives, but old men who stay at home in times of war, and mothers who have sons to lose, know better.
http://www.halcyon.com/arborhts/space.gifOur good father in Washington--for I presume he is now our father as well as yours, since King George has moved his boundaries further north--our great and good father, I say, sends us word that if we do as he desires he will protect us. His brave warriors will be to us a bristling wall of strength, and his wonderful ships of war will fill our harbors, so that our ancient enemies far to the northward -- the Haidas and Tsimshians -- will cease to frighten our women, children, and old men. Then in reality he will be our father and we his children. But can that ever be? Your God is not our God! Your God loves your people and hates mine! He folds his strong protecting arms lovingly about the paleface and leads him by the hand as a father leads an infant son. But, He has forsaken His Red children, if they really are His. Our God, the Great Spirit, seems also to have forsaken us. Your God makes your people wax stronger every day. Soon they will fill all the land. Our people are ebbing away like a rapidly receding tide that will never return. The white man's God cannot love our people or He would protect them. They seem to be orphans who can look nowhere for help. How then can we be brothers? How can your God become our God and renew our prosperity and awaken in us dreams of returning greatness? If we have a common Heavenly Father He must be partial, for He came to His paleface children. We never saw Him. He gave you laws but had no word for His red children whose teeming multitudes once filled this vast continent as stars fill the firmament. No; we are two distinct races with separate origins and separate destinies. There is little in common between us.
http://www.halcyon.com/arborhts/space.gifTo us the ashes of our ancestors are sacred and their resting place is hallowed ground. You wander far from the graves of your ancestors and seemingly without regret. Your religion was written upon tablets of stone by the iron finger of your God so that you could not forget. The Red Man could never comprehend or remember it. Our religion is the traditions of our ancestors -- the dreams of our old men, given them in solemn hours of the night by the Great Spirit; and the visions of our sachems, and is written in the hearts of our people.
http://www.halcyon.com/arborhts/space.gifYour dead cease to love you and the land of their nativity as soon as they pass the portals of the tomb and wander away beyond the stars. They are soon forgotten and never return. Our dead never forget this beautiful world that gave them being. They still love its verdant valleys, its murmuring rivers, its magnificent mountains, sequestered vales and verdant lined lakes and bays, and ever yearn in tender fond affection over the lonely hearted living, and often return from the happy hunting ground to visit, guide, console, and comfort them.
http://www.halcyon.com/arborhts/space.gifDay and night cannot dwell together. The Red Man has ever fled the approach of the White Man, as the morning mist flees before the morning sun. However, your proposition seems fair and I think that my people will accept it and will retire to the reservation you offer them. Then we will dwell apart in peace, for the words of the Great White Chief seem to be the words of nature speaking to my people out of dense darkness.
http://www.halcyon.com/arborhts/space.gifIt matters little where we pass the remnant of our days. They will not be many. The Indian's night promises to be dark. Not a single star of hope hovers above his horizon. Sad-voiced winds moan in the distance. Grim fate seems to be on the Red Man's trail, and wherever he will hear the approaching footsteps of his fell destroyer and prepare stolidly to meet his doom, as does the wounded doe that hears the approaching footsteps of the hunter.
http://www.halcyon.com/arborhts/space.gifA few more moons, a few more winters, and not one of the descendants of the mighty hosts that once moved over this broad land or lived in happy homes, protected by the Great Spirit, will remain to mourn over the graves of a people once more powerful and hopeful than yours. But why should I mourn at the untimely fate of my people? Tribe follows tribe, and nation follows nation, like the waves of the sea. It is the order of nature, and regret is useless. Your time of decay may be distant, but it will surely come, for even the White Man whose God walked and talked with him as friend to friend, cannot be exempt from the common destiny. We may be brothers after all. We will see.
http://www.halcyon.com/arborhts/space.gifWe will ponder your proposition and when we decide we will let you know. But should we accept it, I here and now make this condition that we will not be denied the privilege without molestation of visiting at any time the tombs of our ancestors, friends, and children. Every part of this soil is sacred in the estimation of my people. Every hillside, every valley, every plain and grove, has been hallowed by some sad or happy event in days long vanished. Even the rocks, which seem to be dumb and dead as the swelter in the sun along the silent shore, thrill with memories of stirring events connected with the lives of my people, and the very dust upon which you now stand responds more lovingly to their footsteps than yours, because it is rich with the blood of our ancestors, and our bare feet are conscious of the sympathetic touch. Our departed braves, fond mothers, glad, happy hearted maidens, and even the little children who lived here and rejoiced here for a brief season, will love these somber solitudes and at eventide they greet shadowy returning spirits. And when the last Red Man shall have perished, and the memory of my tribe shall have become a myth among the White Men, these shores will swarm with the invisible dead of my tribe, and when your children's children think themselves alone in the field, the store, the shop, upon the highway, or in the silence of the pathless woods, they will not be alone. In all the earth there is no place dedicated to solitude. At night when the streets of your cities and villages are silent and you think them deserted, they will throng with the returning hosts that once filled them and still love this beautiful land. The White Man will never be alone.
http://www.halcyon.com/arborhts/space.gifLet him be just and deal kindly with my people, for the dead are not powerless. Dead, did I say? There is no death, only a change of worlds.
minnesotasmith
12-14-2004, 10:17
And, handwringingly wishing it away isn't it. I genuinely think that most people here aren't willing to actually DO anything about the events that shape the perceptions that lead to development and sprawl. Here's a noneuphemistic description of what is going on that leads to sprawl, to sum it all up:
================================================
From http://www.vdare.com/francis/divers.htm
"...Meanwhile, the pathetic whites who have left and are leaving Montgomery and Fairfax and who have long since left the District of Columbia (http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/archives/cover/1998/cover1016.html) are heading for still newer areas—Warrenton, Manassas, Harper's Ferry, Frederick—where "diversity" is not so common.
After being pushed out of the cities their ancestors built, they build new cities (http://www.vdare.com/williamson/ever_learn.htm), and after being kicked out of them, still newer ones next door.
Maybe, sooner or later, in about fifty years, the white fugitives from the D.C. area will meet up with the white fugitives (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/fischer.htm) from California (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/almanac.htm) somewhere around Kansas (http://www.vdare.com/allen/brownback.htm)..."
===========================================
One of my long-held rules of thumb is that to every problem, there is a solution. You may prefer the problem to the solution, but there's always a solution.
If the speech is in fact false, then it does not stand on its own merits.
If it is essentially fraudulent, then it has no merits.
And if it has, in fact, become part of the "envirmentalist canon", then it needs to be replaced with something equally moving that has the benefit of actually being genuine.
And Puck, your statement that there is, of course, no historical facts behind the Santa Claus story is yet another Whiteblaze historical mis-statement: There's actually a good bit of evidence for the Santa Claus legend; the real St. Nicholas probably lived and did his good deeds in the 3rd century, in what is nowTurkey. Along with children, he's also the patron saint of sailors and thieves.
Which allows me to repeat, Puck: If you're going to invoke history here, try and get your facts straight.
yes I am know the facts. The historical St Nicholas has little to do with the icon that we see in the US this time of year. What we see now is the name St nick, the poem by Clement adding the suit and the reindeer, and Rudolph who was created by Montgomery Ward. It is a composit. Yet these facts don't change the sentiment and emotions and identity associated with Santa Claus.
So Mr Tarlin please try to understand the post before responding to it. You are hanging yourself up on the facts and cant see the forest for the trees.
Blue Jay
12-14-2004, 10:47
Hey Blue Wacko....For the 10th time..... If you are going to use a big word and make sense learn how to spell the word or atleast be smart enough to use spell check. Those that have seen you post on here for any length of time already know you're an idiot/wacko, but atleast try to fool the new people for a little while. :bse <---reminds me of the one lonely brain cell in your head !
I don't know why I bothered but I went back and checked the spelling, which was correct. It's truly sad you think a big word is one with more than 5 letters in it.
Tha Wookie
12-14-2004, 11:14
OK, since nobody here apparently knows how to use Google, I dredged up the FIRST version of Seattle's speech, transcribed in 1887. Which, for those of you who did not major in math, is 33 years after the speech was made.
http://www.halcyon.com/arborhts/chiefsea.html
"I here and now make this condition that we will not be denied the privilege without molestation of visiting at any time the tombs of our ancestors, friends, and children. Every part of this soil is sacred in the estimation of my people. Every hillside, every valley, every plain and grove, has been hallowed by some sad or happy event in days long vanished. Even the rocks, which seem to be dumb and dead as the swelter in the sun along the silent shore, thrill with memories of stirring events connected with the lives of my people, and the very dust upon which you now stand responds more lovingly to their footsteps than yours, because it is rich with the blood of our ancestors, and our bare feet are conscious of the sympathetic touch."
Wow, that version was far more gripping than the hollywood version. A little more literary, also. While much of the visualization and talking points are the same, demanding respect for nature, the overall reasoning is different.
He wanted the respect and good treament of the land because he saw their human forms a fleeting phase with the white push west, but that their spiritual forms as natural incarnations as eternal.
This line is especially haunting:
"In all the earth there is no place dedicated to solitude."
Even in what we call wilderness, there is a presence, there is spirit, and there is life that deserves respect.
We are walking gingerly and humbly through a graveyard.
Being from Carolina and knowing much of the local history in the region, I am not aware of arson and pillage against Tories/Loyalists. I am aware of this against the rebels, perpetrated by Tories under Ferguson and Tarleton. The Overmountain Men were not regular army, but came to Carolina (crossing near the Overmountain Shelter) after threats that the Loyalists would come and "lay their country waste with fire and sword."
(snipped)
Perhaps you know something about pillage and arson against Loyalists that I missed in history and the sagas handed down through the families. The fact remains that pillage and arson weren't valued strategies of the American Patriots/Rebels and this should not be used to rationalize eco-terrorism.
I agree with Jack on this one. There were confiscation of land and other property of the Loyalist during the war. I found the biography of Benedict Arnold by Willard Stearn Randal to be very informative. When Arnold was in charge of the Philidelphia defenses during his recuperation he needed to use continentals to defend a warehouse from a mob of "patriots" hell bent on plundring it then burning it down. The warehouse was owned by a loyalist
Tim Rich
12-14-2004, 11:33
Wow, that version was far more gripping than the hollywood version. A little more literary, also. While much of the visualization and talking points are the same, demanding respect for nature, the overall reasoning is different.
He wanted the respect and good treament of the land because he saw their human forms a fleeting phase with the white push west, but that their spiritual forms as natural incarnations as eternal.
This line is especially haunting:
"In all the earth there is no place dedicated to solitude."
Even in what we call wilderness, there is a presence, there is spirit, and there is life that deserves respect.
We are walking gingerly and humbly through a graveyard.
Wow. I can't believe anyone could see any similar threads between the actual speech and the manufactured version hijacked by the environmentals. Based upon an actual reading of the original document, the land was held with respect only because of their ancestors and in memory of past events. It is a passionate speech out of regard for his people, not his land.
Wow. I can't believe anyone could see any similar threads between the actual speech and the manufactured version hijacked by the environmentals. Based upon an actual reading of the original document, the land was held with respect only because of their ancestors and in memory of past events. It is a passionate speech out of regard for his people, not his land.
And as a reminder, the "original" speech was transcribed from memory 30+ yrs later, from a person not truly literate in the language. (I did reference it BTW, did not see the need to post the whole thing when I had a link that containted the original speech.)
It would be equivalent to me writing down something my great-grandmother said in her Italian dialect (I don't speak Italian fluently, much less the Napoli dialect she spoke!), then writing it down in English today. I doubt my translation would be correct, and my message would not be entirely correct. Add some literary license and her story would not really conform to what she said.
The "orignal" speech is essentially that.
Long story short? Be way of using documents that have had many revisions over the years. The meaning, the message and what the speaker said is probably very far removed from the original message.
Jack Tarlin
12-14-2004, 16:03
Puck said "I'm hanging myself up with the facts."
Um, no, not quite. I'm merely suggesting that if we're going to invoke episodes from history, speeches, statements, documents, letters, etc., and if we're going to invoke these things in order to re-inforce our modern-day discussions and arguments, then it's really important that we get our facts straight.
Expecting people to use genuine sources and quotes when discussing history is not "hanging" oneself with facts or anything else. Back when I was studying history, if you mis-quoted someone, related an historical event incorrectly, or used false information to make a point, it usually affected the grade you received, at least it did if your professor caught you doing it.
And even if he didn't, it certainly affected the strength of your argument.
Tha Wookie
12-14-2004, 16:15
... Based upon an actual reading of the original document, the land was held with respect only because of their ancestors and in memory of past events. It is a passionate speech out of regard for his people, not his land.
Wrong. You missed his point entirely. He is saying that his people and the land are one and the same!
"Let him be just and deal kindly with my people, for the dead are not powerless. Dead, did I say? There is no death, only a change of worlds."
You're right in that the new popular version miscontrues his metaphors to fit modern debates. But his message is much broader than these points. He's saying the land IS his people; where their physical forms are dying, their manisfestions as spirits in nature will endure.
Jack you are missing my point again.
I was also a history major. My thesis was on monuments and memorialization and how these are constructed to convey a common identity or become a metaphor for commonly held beliefs within a group of people. People, events and speeches are galvanized into heros, stories and slogans and loose every other aspect. This happened with the Seattle speech, it has happened with "Santa Claus" . We all know that Washington and the cherry tree is a fable but does this fact detract from its value? I have seen a statue of Nathan Hale...nobody knew what he looked like and his famous last words have been refuted by historians but he is still an icon.
Hairs were split with my examples and the point was lost. I agree with you that it is not proper for an historian to maufacture sources, and evidence. But memorilzation is not the job of the historian
Tha Wookie
12-14-2004, 16:18
And as a reminder, the "original" speech was transcribed from memory 30+ yrs later, from a person not truly literate in the language. (I did reference it BTW, did not see the need to post the whole thing when I had a link that containted the original speech.)
It would be equivalent to me writing down something my great-grandmother said in her Italian dialect (I don't speak Italian fluently, much less the Napoli dialect she spoke!), then writing it down in English today. I doubt my translation would be correct, and my message would not be entirely correct. Add some literary license and her story would not really conform to what she said.
The "orignal" speech is essentially that.
Long story short? Be way of using documents that have had many revisions over the years. The meaning, the message and what the speaker said is probably very far removed from the original message.
Are you talking about the Bible?
Are you talking about the Bible?
No, I was talking about my late great-grandmother who made some wonderful home made ravioli using notrhing more than a rolling pin, a drinking glass, and a fork. Nothing made her happier than seeing three Magnanti boys to carry on the family name. I still remember her and consider myself fortunante to have known a direct link to where my family came from. How that relates to the Bible, I'll never know. (OK, my family still loves to make meals of bibical proportions. :) )
Now, if WE are talking about the veracity of the Bible... Sorry, I ain't gonna touch that! :)
I learned a long time ago not to argue faith with people. Matters of faith can't be proved or disproven. So why bother debating it? I know you have a deep faith in Christ as savior. I don't. Lets leave it at that, shall we?
Tha Wookie
12-14-2004, 17:32
Mags, Tim, others.
As much as it seems you'd like to debunk the oral and written historical perspective of land use of Native American tribes by digging out with your fingernails the pitch morter that holds the foundation of our natural and cultural legacy together, I urge you to consider otherwise.
This arguement roiling here is the very same that has existed for hundreds of years. Environmental, social, and spiritual differences in culture which serve as debateable topics today are manifestations of the same cultural struggle that has been here since Europeans invaded.
Even still, we take what is not ours.
"We are not your slaves. These lakes, these woods and mountains were left yo us by our ancestors. They are our inheritence; and we will part with them to none. Your nation supposes that we, like the white people, cannot live without bread and pork and beer. But you ought to know that He, the Great Spirit and Master of Life, has provided food for us in these spacious lakes, and on these woody mountains."
-Pontiac, Odawa, 1792
Even when risk running out of a resource, unlike other creatures of nature who call this continent home, we continue to destroy and consume.
"The frog does not drink up the pond in which he lives."
-Oral Tradition, Teton Soiux
As thru-hikers, section-hikers, and people just interested in hiking, we have a critical role to listen to the forefathers of this continent, to understand this place a little better as a result of our experience, and make help communicate what we hear during our fellowship with nature to those distracted by the noises of the day.
Not only will our role better our society, but I firmly believe that it is necessary for our survival as a country. There is a great lesson here; as a young country in a land still strange to most, we will be much better off in learning from the wisdom of the Elders, instead of relearning them all on our own.
"No real progress can be made in environmental law unless some of the insights into the sacredness of the land derived from traditional tribal religions become basic attitudes of the larger society."
-Vine Deloria, Jr., Standing Rock Sioux, 1991
This isn't just about environmentalism, but about way of life. We live in a country where a lot of people still think there is only one way to live, and that it will be stamped down on every inch of this land one way or another like it or not.
But we also live in a country where many people believe the opposite: There is a way to reconcile cultures and preserve the natural and societal characteristics of this continent. To do so, we must be willing to listen to our continental elders, and more importnatly, to the voice that speaks through them.
This is a lot more than the issue of "the environment". That's just the minimum requirement. And the other side knows this. Even as their babies and wives are poisoned, they try to deny the natural wisdom of this land.
"Hear me! A single twig breaks, but a bundle of twigs is strong."
-Tecumseh, Shawnee, 1795
Tim Rich
12-14-2004, 17:47
Wrong. You missed his point entirely. He is saying that his people and the land are one and the same!
"Let him be just and deal kindly with my people, for the dead are not powerless. Dead, did I say? There is no death, only a change of worlds."
You're right in that the new popular version miscontrues his metaphors to fit modern debates. But his message is much broader than these points. He's saying the land IS his people; where their physical forms are dying, their manisfestions as spirits in nature will endure.
Everything he writes is hinged on the memories of events and those who have gone before him. It is true that he believes their spirits remain, but there's no message that his people are the rocks and the soil.
When he says
"To us the ashes of our ancestors are sacred and their resting place is hallowed ground."
and
"But should we accept it, I here and now make this condition that we will not be denied the privilege without molestation of visiting at any time the tombs of our ancestors, friends, and children. Every part of this soil is sacred in the estimation of my people. Every hillside, every valley, every plain and grove, has been hallowed by some sad or happy event in days long vanished. Even the rocks, which seem to be dumb and dead as the swelter in the sun along the silent shore, thrill with memories of stirring events connected with the lives of my people, and the very dust upon which you now stand responds more lovingly to their footsteps than yours, because it is rich with the blood of our ancestors, and our bare feet are conscious of the sympathetic touch."
I believe he's addressing the memories of his people and the spirits of those who have gone before, his and their love for the land, but not reaching toward anthropomorphism.
We'll have to disagree on this one.
Take Care,
Tim
Mags, Tim, others.
As much as it seems you'd like to debunk the oral and written historical perspective of land use of Native American tribes by digging out with your fingernails the pitch morter that holds the foundation of our natural and cultural legacy together, I urge you to consider otherwise.
Sigh. No. I am not bebunking the historical perspective of land use. I am debunking the myth that a widely circulated speech is a product of a Native American leader. It is a product of a movie script. I was brought up to accept the truth. I was brought up that even if the truth is not what I want, is what I have to accept. Mags Sr. gave me some hard lessons in life. Including that somet things I did not want to hear.
But you know what? Truth ain't bad.
I take pride in the fact that liberals and conservatives alike get a tad upset when I debunk their myths. Would it surprise anyone that I used to have a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer? :)
steve hiker
12-14-2004, 18:17
This isn't just about environmentalism, but about way of life.
It's also about our survival as a species. The way we are going with our disregard for the environment, we may not have many more generations left.
If it is not too late to save ourselves from the fate of the 15 to 37 percent of living species facing imminent extinction, we need to act decisively to reduce global greenhouse gasses and other factors driving us in that direction.
And, if we are doomed, I suggest that we not adopt a "party today for tomorrow we die" attitude, but should save as much of the environment as possible so we can enjoy what is left of this magnificent Earth in the time we have left.
Global warming called growing threat to species
By The Washington Post and The Baltimore Sun
Thursday, January 08, 2004
Researchers ranging from northern Britain to the wet tropics of northeastern Australia and the Mexican desert said yesterday that global warming at currently predicted rates will drive 15 to 37 percent of living species toward extinction by mid-century.
Dismayed by their results, the researchers called for "rapid implementation of technologies" to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and warned that the scale of extinctions could climb much higher because of mutually reinforcing interactions between climate change and habitat destruction caused by agriculture, invasive species and other factors.
"The mid-range estimate is that 24 percent of plants and animals will be committed to extinction by 2050," said ecologist Chris Thomas, of Britain's University of Leeds. "We're not talking about the occasional extinction — we're talking about 1.25 million species. It's a massive number."
Jack Tarlin
12-14-2004, 18:36
Interesting thread....
Note to Puck:
The alleged last words of the patriot Nathan Hale have not, as you say, been refuted.
If memory serves, they were personally witnessed by a British officer named John Montressor, an aide to General William Howe. Montressor attended Hale before his execution and was an eye-witness; it was Montressor who brought word of the execution to the Americans and personally reported on Hale's last moments to a friend of Hale's, Captain William Hull. The famous Hale quote was attested to by Montressor, who has no reason to either invent it or embellish it.
If Hale's quote (lifted from a play by Joseph Addison) from the gallows has indeed been refuted, I am unaware of it.
But perhaps your history lectures were different from mine.
Jack Tarlin
12-14-2004, 18:50
Wook:
Nobody is trying to debunk or denigrate the oral or written perspectives of Native Americans.
It has merely been suggested, several times now, that when one invokes the memory, writings, deeds, or words of historical figures, it damages the argument if people get their names, dates, events, and quotes wrong. This is a bad use of history. A good argument is ill-served when it is buttressed with falsehoods, errors, or mis-statements.
Along those lines, thanx for your recent moving quote from Chief Pontiac, which you seem to think was a statement he made in 1792.
If memory serves, Pontiac died in 1769, so I doubt he was saying much of anything twenty years later.
And this is entirely my point.
Tha Wookie
12-14-2004, 19:28
If memory serves, Pontiac died in 1769, so I doubt he was saying much of anything twenty years later.
And this is entirely my point.
Jack, do you really remember those kind of dates off the top of your head? Impressive!
I have to get mine out of books, like the one published in association with AISES (the American Indian Science and Engineering Society), called "Words of Power: Voices from Indian America", which quoted Pontiac saying that quote in 1762. Seeing as how an apparent typo in my post made it read "1792" instead of "1762", I'm sure you'd be willing to just let it go, because the point is not the year or which elder said it, but rather the message it carries. Thanks for pointing it out, and for giving me the opportunity to post it again, with the corrected year.
You failed, however, in pointing out that I also mis-spelled the word "to", typing "yo" instead.
Here is the corrected version. Get out your red pen, Jack.
"We are not your slaves. These lakes, these woods and mountains were left to us by our ancestors. They are our inheritence; and we will part with them to none. Your nation supposes that we, like the white people, cannot live without bread and pork and beer. But you ought to know that He, the Great Spirit and Master of Life, has provided food for us in these spacious lakes, and on these woody mountains."
-Pontiac, Odawa, 1762
If you want to know the truth, go talk to the people themselves. They still exist. They still struggle. Some tribes still have no reservations. In some ways, Native American culture is dying. In others, it is better than before.
But the point is that we ought to listen well to the messages from the sages of this continent. We ought to listen to the land while hiking, and carry home the news to communicate through our way of living.
"We want to change the image that has been portrayed by John Wayne, the media, and the history books. We want to portray the truth. We, the Indian people, the Red Man of the Western Hemisphere, are the truth of the Western Hemisphere!"
- Clyde Bellecourt, Ojibway, 1978
So you see, they are truth! Listen to them. Listen to the land.
"And this is entirely my point."
- Jack Tarlin, thru-hiker, 2004
Thanks Jack, I couldn't have said it better.
Rocks 'n Roots
12-14-2004, 21:16
Steve Hiker:
It's much better to fillibuster with a Chief Seattle reference contest than actually discuss the AT's purpose...
Steve Hiker: It's much better to fillibuster with a Chief Seattle reference contest than actually discuss the AT's purpose...
It would be even better to discuss the significance of the words, rather than the source of the words. These words remain important enough to debate because they deliver a very truthful message, regardless of from who or when or where they originated.
Those who dislike the message -- and those who lack the knowledge, or perhaps the intelligence, to understand the words -- understandably prefer disputing who the author might be.
But until we hear someone questioning the wisdom of the words themselves, I'll assume that we all agree that these are wise observations and the only question remaining is who was wise enough to first utter them.
Weary
whitedove
12-15-2004, 01:45
Long story short? Be way of using documents that have had many revisions over the years. The meaning, the message and what the speaker said is probably very far removed from the original message.
Very true and most of history is like this. Take the Bible for instance isn't that a very elaborate and wordy history book?....same thing as is being debated here but so many follow and believe it is the gospel....why is Seattle any different? Moses said what? Jesus said what? when was it said? when was it written and by whom? What makes that the "word"?
Native Americans have always used story telling to teach their young and others important lessons. The way of speaking isn't dry and full of static facts but a very visual way of wording things, events, lessons. Those of you who are saying it is too elaborate for Seattle to have said maybe need to attend a few powwows or meetings to see how it is even done today. Have an elder tell you a story one day. My grandmother taught me in this way and I impart the same to my children. As far as the over all message in his speech? My ancestors KNEW the Earth and respected it and we still do.
Are those his actual words? Who really knows, not I.
Was it written down by a white man years after the fact? Yes that has been proven.
Native Americans didn't have a written language. I find it hilarious when these historians give birthdays for Natives such as when they say Seattle was born? Where did that info come from? Not our records because there isn't any. Or hey maybe he told someone and that someone wrote it down somewhere and then published the info years later for present day historians to look up and write down. Is that then considerd "fact"?
Is there some truth in that speech? In my opinion yes there is even though an outsider who was "there" wrote it down (isn't that the way most history is written? the Bible/Torah/Quran surely was)......I see the Native American philosophy in those words whether or not it is an exact dictation of what he said. For the historians on this thread.....where do the records you research come from? Documents written by Indians or documents and "facts" written by others who were "there" or years after the fact?
Mountain Dew
12-15-2004, 02:37
Blue Wacko, I believe that you have a spell check virus of sorts. You first try calling me out for grammar mistakes while you butcher your teacher like scolding of my post. Then you proceed to use the word "hypocricy" for no apparent reason and can't even get the spelling right. Oh how I love it when you criticize me for something and then proceed to do the exact thing you claimed i did. Karma ! You went back and spell checked the word HYPOCRISY only to decide for the second time that you think it is spelled hypocricy ? I rest my case. :D
minnesotasmith
12-15-2004, 03:25
I consider that I am a Caucasian Native American, being born in the U.S. of U.S. citizens who were born here as well. When someone commonly refers to NAs, I would say that "American Aborigines" (whose ancestors immigrated here from Asia a few thousand years ago) is probably more apt, given what they are presumably referring to.
I know I speak for at least half of the regular posters in saying MS. You are an idiot.
I consider that I am a Caucasian Native American, being born in the U.S. of U.S. citizens who were born here as well. When someone commonly refers to NAs, I would say that "American Aborigines" (whose ancestors immigrated here from Asia a few thousand years ago) is probably more apt, given what they are presumably referring to.
Very true and most of history is like this. Take the Bible for instance isn't that a very elaborate and wordy history book?.
As I told Wookie, I am NOT about to get into the veracity of the Bible.
I will leave that topic alone.
Those who dislike the message -- and those who lack the knowledge, or perhaps the intelligence, to understand the words -- understandably prefer disputing who the author might be.
Weary
Apprently no one reads on these forums.
As I said, I don't appreciate people using false anecdotes to backup their points. It is wrong if the current administration does it. It is wrong if environmentalists do it. It is wrong if conservaties do it. It is wrong if liberals do it. Blindly accepting words and then blithely saying "Well, it is not the facts that matter it is the words" is a dangerous idea. That type of reasoning has allowed people over the years to rise to power, skirt around the law and do the other odious tasks.
I stongly suggest you all read "THE DEMON HAUNTED WORLD" by Carl Sagan for more ideas about this topic.
To repeat for the third time, to be accurate
"The following is generally attributed to Chief Seattle, though it is verbatim from a 1971 movie script. Though Chief Seattle never said the words, I do believe it is something worth reading".
Did I not just say it was worth reading? All I am asking for is honesty is discussion, esp. once it has been pointed out the an urban myth is just that..an urban myth,
Why is telling the truth so hard for people to do, regardless of their political leanings?
I again chuckle how liberals on this forum call me anti-environmentalists and how liberals call me a bleeding heart. People don't like truth in general if it contradicts their agenda. Fabricating lies hurt Rumsfield. Fabricating lies hurt CBS.
To repeat for the third time, to be accurate
"The following is generally attributed to Chief Seattle, though it is verbatim from a 1971 movie script. Though Chief Seattle never said the words, I do believe it is something worth reading".
Did I not just say it was worth reading? All I am asking for is honesty is discussion, esp. once it has been pointed out the an urban myth is just that..an urban myth,
Seems very fair and honest to me. or we could use the "Anonymous" byline. It is a point of interest to see how these icons have evolved or how they were manufactured.
But Weary does have a point; many have argued about the origins of the speecha nd not its content.
Seems very fair and honest to me. or we could use the "Anonymous" byline. It is a point of interest to see how these icons have evolved or how they were manufactured.
But Weary does have a point; many have argued about the origins of the speecha nd not its content.
On both sides of the discussion to be fair.
Rocks 'n Roots
12-15-2004, 15:08
If people want to fool themselves that a Chief Seattle hijacking of the thread does anything other than pull it away from the main point OK.
I would feel safer with Mags if he ever addressed the long term outcome of sprawl and how it affects the planet and AT. However, even with his strong opinion on the legal/moral aspect of subdivision torching, he (along with others) never seems to do that.
MacKaye designed the AT to be a greenway from which wild areas could be preserved from the corridor outward. Too many people have a real problem accepting that or being able to speak of it. It was obvious this was coming. Our society is basically a giant fillibuster - refusing to admit it is doing anything seriously wrong. The Trail community reflects that - as if speaking of the Trail's purpose was somehow impolite...
I would feel safer with Mags if he ever addressed the long term outcome of sprawl and how it affects the planet and AT.
I don't think he's comfortable with that subject.
whitedove
12-15-2004, 16:09
As I told Wookie, I am NOT about to get into the veracity of the Bible.
I will leave that topic alone.
I was just using that as a prime example for what you were arguing for. From other posts and comments you have made, I don't think that issue, the Bible, is one we would disagree on. But that wasn't the only point or question within my post.
I would feel safer with Mags if he ever addressed the long term outcome of sprawl and how it affects the planet and AT. However, even with his strong opinion on the legal/moral aspect of subdivision torching, he (along with others) never seems to do that.
Yes..I am such a scary fella. :-)
However, we were discussing how some fringe element *MAY* have torched a home where family lives. A bit different than urban sprawl. No? If I take a strong stand on people possibly getting burned...well, I am not about to apologize. I also have a strong stand on religion, the Red Sox vs. Yankees and what consitutes a good beer. You don't see me bringing up urban sprawl with that as well.
Now, if you want to talk urban sprawl, that is a different story. Try to keep your facts, thoughts and ideas in line. 'eh? When I discuss urban sprawl with people, I don't bring up how someone may have torched a family's dwelling Maryland.
I put my money where my mouth is. Voted to raise my tax dollars (my money!) to buy more open space to surround the town to help prevent sprawl. I shop locally. I also ride a bike to work everyday. (Or take the bus in bad weather). Do trail work locally, too.
Just don't see the need to do the Church Lady routine and act all smug about it. The way I was brought up is that you do something good for the sake of doing something good. You don't go about preaching how great you are and what a fine thing you did; then chastise others because they don't have the same arrogance about what a swell fellow they are. Furthermore, you actually do something. Words are cheap.
RnR, I am glad I am your latest target. It puts me in some good company. But, a word to the wise? Stop this "Wash. Rinse. Repeat" routine you do on every forum you are on. It is Mad Libs with you. Just change your target and subject. Otherwise your routine is always the same.
I don't think he's comfortable with that subject.
Well, not in a thread about homes getting burnt down. :-)
Again, I love how conservatives tag me as a bleeding heart, liberals assume I am anti-enviromentalist. I just stick to the topic. Why you like to discuss urban sprawl? Then ask away! Just bring up the topic rather make pithy comments.
I was just using that as a prime example for what you were arguing for. From other posts and comments you have made, I don't think that issue, the Bible, is one we would disagree on. But that wasn't the only point or question within my post.
A good chunk of the arguement referenced the Bible. I am an shy when it comes to ANYTHING that discusses the good book among mix company (residual Catholic guilt perhaps? :D) And, to be honest, I don't feel ambitious enough to continue this debate and use other examples than the Bible. Sound reaonsable? If you wnat to say "Well, then I win" fine by me.
Here is an announcement for a reward. The ATF has also been called in to investigate.
CHARLES COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
200 Baltimore Street
P.O. Box 2150
La Plata, Maryland 20646
301-645-0550 or 301-870-3000
Maryland Relay Service: 711
Relay Service TDD: 1-800-735-2258
Wednesday, December 8, 2004
$82,000 Reward Offered That Leads to Arrest in Hunters Brooke Fire
(Wednesday, December 8, 2004) -- The Charles County Commissioners announced today that a $82,000 reward is being offered that leads to the arrest and conviction of the person(s) responsible for the 26 dwelling fires in the Hunters Brooke subdivision off Hawthorne Road in Mason Springs, near Indian Head, Maryland, on Monday, December 6. The amount includes $25,000 announced by the County Commissioners at their District 2 town meeting held yesterday evening at the Nanjemoy Community Center, 4375 Port Tobacco Road, Nanjemoy, Maryland, and $57,000 provided by the business community today.
“We will not tolerate this type of terrorism in our community, and strongly condemn those responsible for this heinous act. It is not representative of Charles County. We are a welcoming, business- and family-friendly place. We welcome this community and others like it,” said the County Commissioners.
“We encourage investment in our community. We will not be deterred by these criminal acts of one or a few, and we will use the resources at our disposal to assist in seeing that this community is rebuilt,” the Commissioners emphasized.
“Our hearts go out to the family that has been displaced by this fire, and to those who lost their dream homes; to the developer, who in spite of the many obstacles, persevered to make this a reality; and to the builder who was making this a fine community,” the Commissioners said.
The County Commissioners wish to express their sincere appreciation to the Charles County Sheriff’s Office, the State Fire Marshal’s Office, the Maryland State Police, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Anne Arundel County Fire Marshal’s Office, the Prince George’s County Fire and EMS Department, and the Fairfax County, Virginia, who are providing their resources to help solve this crime. In addition, the Commissioners extended their thanks to the firefighters from Charles, St. Mary’s, and Calvert Counties, and King George, Virginia, who responded to the four-alarm fire.
“Thankfully, no injuries or fatalities occurred as a result of this blaze,” said the County Commissioners.
“We are confident that our law enforcement community will vigorously pursue and prosecute the perpetrators to the fullest extent once they are apprehended,” said the County Commissioners.
If you have information about these fires, please call the State Fire Marshal’s arson hotline at 1-800-492-TIPS.
For additional information, please contact the Charles County Government Public Information Office at 301-645-0580.
Autjorities are ruling out eco terrorism
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64714-2004Dec14.html
here is good report about the battle over the development
http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041212/ZNYT02/412120411
Mags mentioned paying an increase in taxes to purchase land to set aside. This is a great idea although a local one. Affluent communities will do this to gaurantee a quality of life. When a community takes such action it is a reflection of thier values. In my town a development was stopped in its tracts using the wetlands act and a large grassroots movement. After the developers defeat other developers hold land for future projects unloaded it to the town increasing the amount of green space exponentialy. It seems like it pays to be proactive and have zoning and environemental laws (local, State and federal) in place before the developers come knocking.
whitedove
12-15-2004, 17:30
And, to be honest, I don't feel ambitious enough to continue this debate and use other examples than the Bible. Sound reaonsable? If you wnat to say "Well, then I win" fine by me.
Ahhhh Mags and you were one I enjoyed too, that actually made some sense. I don't consider it a win / lose thing, just an exchange of opinions and ideas. An excellent way of broadening one's mind.
Ahhhh Mags and you were one I enjoyed too, that actually made some sense. I don't consider it a win / lose thing, just an exchange of opinions and ideas. An excellent way of broadening one's mind.
I agree. Debate is not a bad thing at all. Glad you are of the mind set where it is not a win/lose thing, too. But, I honestly don't feel like scrolling back now in the message queue to bring up the points.
Long story short? I'm a lazy SOB today. :) I am sure i will be a pain in the arse at some other point. Don't worry! ;)
seems like it pays to be proactive and have zoning and environemental laws (local, State and federal) in place before the developers come knocking.
Yep. Better to do things that to say, oh quote Benton Mackaye on trail forums. :)
minnesotasmith
12-15-2004, 22:01
Tribes: "I know I speak for at least half of the regular posters in saying MS. You are an idiot."
When someone thinks that an ad hom insult is an adequate substitute for a reasoned attempt at a logic-based refutation, they don't even speak for themselves, as their pronouncement is nothing but the rhetorical equivalent of a three-year-old in a snit stamping his foot and insisting "Is not!!" to news he finds inconvenient (such as being told that homework is more important than watching a television program).
==================================================
Puck:
"It seems like it pays to be proactive and have zoning and environemental laws (local, State and federal) in place before the developers come knocking."
Ownership of property directly implies control over its use. "Zoning" by any unit of government's dictate is simply yet another version of asserting control without ownership. That is a taking (partial or total) without compensation, directly forbidden by Amendment V of the U.S. Constitution:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt
"...nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation."
Sorry. If a person or a unit of government wants to control the use of land (other than to prevent injury to other people or other people's property), their Constitutional/moral/legal options are solely:
1) To convince the owners by words to come to their opinion about its best use, or
2) To purchase it on the open market at market prices.
Anything else is a type of theft. You surely don't openly support that, do you?
Autjorities are ruling out eco terrorism
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64714-2004Dec14.html
This is so unbelievably typical. Blame the "environmentalist wackos" on day #1, then back away from that 7-10 days later. The Sean Hannity's and Rush Limbaughs of the world have already blamed environmentalists to the millions that swallow every word they utter. I wonder if conservative talk radio or the Washington Times has announced any correction? I won't hold my breath.
I hate to say "I told you so", but "I told you so". See post #194 in this thread for the following quote;
One thing I find a bit disheartening - is that people have jumped to the conclusion that this was done by "environmental terrorists". The fact is, that many minority families have bought homes in this community - and this could have just as easily have been done by some racist wacko or skin head group.
Tha Wookie
12-15-2004, 23:12
This is so unbelievably typical. Blame the "environmentalist wackos" on day #1, then back away from that 7-10 days later. The Sean Hannity's and Rush Limbaughs of the world have already blamed environmentalists to the millions that swallow every word they utter. I wonder if conservative talk radio or the Washington Times has announced any correction? I won't hold my breath.
I hate to say "I told you so", but "I told you so". See post #194 in this thread for the following quote;
I guess Earth First! got some free risk-free press.
Does this mean the environmentalist witch hunt is over?
They just wanted to throw the "terror" word around some... "let's see, 'eco' sounds good in front of it! That would sell some advertisements!"
Apprently no one reads on these forums.
As I said, I don't appreciate people using false anecdotes to backup their points. It is wrong if the current administration does it. It is wrong if environmentalists do it. It is wrong if conservaties do it. It is wrong if liberals do it. Blindly accepting words and then blithely saying "Well, it is not the facts that matter it is the words" is a dangerous idea. That type of reasoning has allowed people over the years to rise to power, skirt around the law and do the other odious tasks. I stongly suggest you all read "THE DEMON HAUNTED WORLD" by Carl Sagan for more ideas about this topic.
To repeat for the third time, to be accurate
"The following is generally attributed to Chief Seattle, though it is verbatim from a 1971 movie script. Though Chief Seattle never said the words, I do believe it is something worth reading".
Did I not just say it was worth reading? All I am asking for is honesty is discussion, esp. once it has been pointed out the an urban myth is just that..an urban myth,
Why is telling the truth so hard for people to do, regardless of their political leanings?
I again chuckle how liberals on this forum call me anti-environmentalists and how liberals call me a bleeding heart. People don't like truth in general if it contradicts their agenda. Fabricating lies hurt Rumsfield. Fabricating lies hurt CBS.
Mags. Chuckle all you want. I've known for at least three decades where the words came from. I would have said so when I first read the quote on this forum had I gotten around to it. The 1971 movie script reflected the mood of the early 70s as earth day was born and the first flush of modern environmental activism took hold.
Sadly, folks pounced on the error of attribution, not the wisdom of the words.
I'm not surprised. Just saddened by the ignorance of those who profess wisdom.
Weary
saimyoji
12-15-2004, 23:35
Could this be the longest (most replies) of any thread on WB?
screwysquirrel
12-15-2004, 23:54
Originally Posted by MOWGLI16 [One thing I find a bit disheartening - is that people have jumped to the conclusion that this was done by "environmental terrorists". The fact is, that many minority families have bought homes in this community - and this could have just as easily have been done by some racist wacko or skin head group.]
I find it just as disheartening that you jump to a conclusion that it was done by a racist wacko or skinhead group. Who ever did this should be prosecuted to the fullest extant of the law whether there was blacks or whites buying houses in this project. So I figure your just as guilty as Hannitys or Limbaughs of this world.
orangebug
12-15-2004, 23:58
It is the longest current thread, with the interesting bizarreness of "hiker princess" for competition.
Ain't this site great for making it real easy to ignore certain listers? They can continue to rant their same "Johnny One Note" BS and it doesn't have to interfere with your pleasant day.
What is fun is to see the number of threads that virtually disappear with a well constructed Ignore List.
:jump
No there have certainly been longer threads here in the past year, specifically ones that involve Warren v.s. the People.
With Smokey Steve and Chris away from the idiot box we certainly need all the help we can get with postings!
Rocks 'n Roots
12-16-2004, 01:48
RnR, I am glad I am your latest target. It puts me in some good company. But, a word to the wise? Stop this "Wash. Rinse. Repeat" routine you do on every forum you are on. It is Mad Libs with you. Just change your target and subject. Otherwise your routine is always the same.
Hmm, sounds like flames in response to a serious question.
I don't see how a group burning down a controversial development next to an important wetland can't be sprawl related? The routine that is the same here is encroachment into the Trail and deliberate short shrift to the AT's conservation side. ATC recently sent a message to members in contempt of the AT's conservation side- the same people who flame those who point it out.
Don't trust anything you see in the papers. More likely they are saying it wasn't environmental activists in order to get them to expose themselves. Or just to deny them credit and exposure.
Lennar Corporation reported today that homebuilding is up and their projected profits will rise 25% this year. They didn't mention anything about their product's impact on America's environment. Nor did the article below:
“We will not tolerate this type of terrorism in our community, and strongly condemn those responsible for this heinous act. It is not representative of Charles County. We are a welcoming, business- and family-friendly place. We welcome this community and others like it,” said the County Commissioners.
“We encourage investment in our community. We will not be deterred by these criminal acts of one or a few, and we will use the resources at our disposal to assist in seeing that this community is rebuilt,” the Commissioners emphasized.
“Our hearts go out to the family that has been displaced by this fire, and to those who lost their dream homes; to the developer, who in spite of the many obstacles, persevered to make this a reality; and to the builder who was making this a fine community,” the Commissioners said.
It's clear the Commissioner, the developer, and various civic agencies deal with this mainly on a sterile statutory basis. Like I said before, very predictable. As I said, they will go to lengths to treat this solely as a criminal matter and give zero recognition to the cause. This article confirms that. Words like terrorism are used to bring the act solely under their definition. The developer is treated like a victim and spoken of in praising terms as in a legal partnership. Prospective home buyers are brought in like poster children - the usual. It's clear a business-like relationship is being sold here with zero intellectual discussion of the CAUSE. May I suggest, this very process of sanitizing and defining by selective language is exactly why these people burned down that subdivision.
As you can see in this thread, though not endorsing arson, many persons are conscious and aware, if not approving of, the need to prevent environmental damage through rote construction. In fact a good percentage of persons were not at all of the same official attitude as that of the article. The were given ZERO representation. Zero. The wording of the article makes clear that government will do its best to deny any motive for this act - a motive that many Americans feel strongly about. Their American voice is treated the same way this article treats the matter. It's ignored, and referred to in the selective terms above. This is simply a matter between Lennar, the County, and the law.
The County sells itself as a normal "business friendly place". It doesn't sell itself as a "wetlands unfriendly place". Well, that's what it is. My idea of a "fine community" would be one that can save its critical wetlands from 7 billion dollar Miami corporations who plan to increase their doings...
It's more American than any of the hollow official talk I've seen in response. Sorry...
screwysquirrel
12-16-2004, 02:36
Rocks and Roots; How many wetlands and animal habitats have you saved this year or any other year? Have you gone to the your city concil protesting about urban sprawl or do you do all your protesting on this site? You act like your going to save the United States from urban sprawl but as the saying goes "What Have You Done Lately?' Many people talk the talk but no action in their communities. Action not words save the day. How many FINE COMMUNITIES have you saved from the greedy Miami corparations? None I dare say.
I find it just as disheartening that you jump to a conclusion that it was done by a racist wacko or skinhead group. Who ever did this should be prosecuted to the fullest extant of the law whether there was blacks or whites buying houses in this project. So I figure your just as guilty as Hannitys or Limbaughs of this world.
Take another look at my post. I didn't accuse anyone or jump to any conclusions. What I said was " this could have just as easily have been done by some racist wacko or skin head group". My issue was the jumping to conclusion part.
And yes, we agree, the perps should be prosecuted.
orangebug
12-16-2004, 09:29
Nah, RnR lives on a barrier island. No ecological damage there. Your tax dollars are at work rebuilding his neighborhood in anticipation of the next hurricane.
Talk about sprawl...
BTW, I'm still keen to know how does he know so much much about the "groups" and "movements" that commit arson. I wonder if he's been smoking too much of that stuff those Billion Dollar Miami Corporations import.
TJ aka Teej
12-16-2004, 09:35
People don't like truth in general if it contradicts their agenda.
I expect a few pig-nuts here won't like the truth above either, Mags! :D
"Brother," Cap said, "he's a Pig-nut!"
"Pig-nut?" I asked.
"Pig-nut," Cap repeated. "You can tell a man with brains he's wrong and he'll try to fix things up: but you take and tell a pig-nut he's wrong, and he'll spend the rest of his life trying to have something heavy fall on you when you ain't looking."
Tim Rich
12-16-2004, 09:47
**snipped**
Don't trust anything you see in the papers. More likely they are saying it wasn't environmental activists in order to get them to expose themselves. Or just to deny them credit and exposure.
**snipped**
It's clear the Commissioner, the developer, and various civic agencies deal with this mainly on a sterile statutory basis. Like I said before, very predictable. As I said, they will go to lengths to treat this solely as a criminal matter and give zero recognition to the cause. This article confirms that. Words like terrorism are used to bring the act solely under their definition. The developer is treated like a victim and spoken of in praising terms as in a legal partnership. Prospective home buyers are brought in like poster children - the usual. It's clear a business-like relationship is being sold here with zero intellectual discussion of the CAUSE. May I suggest, this very process of sanitizing and defining by selective language is exactly why these people burned down that subdivision.
**snipped**
RnR, you started this post, named it, and apparently still maintain that it was ecoterrorism. You complain that the criminals aren't being given enough credit and exposure. They deserve no exposure or credit, whatever their cause.
I'm glad it's predictable that "civic agencies" would base their actions on law. They didn't need to use the word "terrorism" to put it under their jurisdiction. "Arson" works fine. Regardless of your disdain for areas of sprawl you don't frequent, the landowners are the victims in this crime. Discussion of CAUSE should be limited to a determination of MOTIVE, and then only long enough to put them behind BARS.
Puck:
"It seems like it pays to be proactive and have zoning and environemental laws (local, State and federal) in place before the developers come knocking."
Ownership of property directly implies control over its use. "Zoning" by any unit of government's dictate is simply yet another version of asserting control without ownership. That is a taking (partial or total) without compensation, directly forbidden by Amendment V of the U.S. Constitution:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt
"...nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation."
Sorry. If a person or a unit of government wants to control the use of land (other than to prevent injury to other people or other people's property), their Constitutional/moral/legal options are solely:
1) To convince the owners by words to come to their opinion about its best use, or
2) To purchase it on the open market at market prices.
Anything else is a type of theft. You surely don't openly support that, do you?
UMM Not sure where to start. There is a thing called zoning that will limit use to residiential or commercial. Residential zoning will dictate the size of lots eg. 1/4 acre or one acre. It can state wether or not you can have farm animals. Zoning can dictate how many bathrooms you have based on the sewage infastructure. Also included under zoning is driveway easements, number of residents within a structure. Zoning as well as association bylaws can dictate the color of your house. I am no lawyer but many of these stipulations are made according to state and municiple law. Some zoning gets it muslce from environmental lws and historical registry listings. Some towns have a fee on all realestate transactions so that they can by land for greenspace and parks.
Also, don't forget the government under the writ of eminent domain can force you to sell your property.
Originally Posted by Kenneth Roberts' 1933 novel Rabble in Arms
"Brother," Cap said, "he's a Pig-nut!"
"Pig-nut?" I asked.
"Pig-nut," Cap repeated. "You can tell a man with brains he's wrong and he'll try to fix things up: but you take and tell a pig-nut he's wrong, and he'll spend the rest of his life trying to have something heavy fall on you when you ain't looking."
Wow :clap A Kenneth Robers quote....lets start a reading group. I love this guy:jump
Mags. Chuckle all you want. I've known for at least three decades where the words came from. I would have said so when I first read the quote on this forum had I gotten around to it. The 1971 movie script reflected the mood of the early 70s as earth day was born and the first flush of modern environmental activism took hold.
I plan on chuckling. You readily claim it is false, don't say otherwise. Then, in the best Orwellian voice claim it is the words, not the facts that matter. You can get a great job with the Bush administration! :-)
Alas, I've only know this fact for 10 yrs or so. Of course, I am only 3 decades old. :)
It's more American than any of the hollow official talk I've seen in response. Sorry...[/QUOTE]
And with those words, you've hung yourself. What the heck do you do besides hop on forums all day? :) If you look with my posts, they correspond to work hours. Then, when my day is done, I get off the darn computer and forums.
Perhaps it is my upbringing, perhaps it is my own bias, but talk (writing) is cheap. Actions are what is important.
I go to town council meetings, take a pro-active stance in my outdoor group, commute every day via bike, do trail work, write letters to elected officials and put my actual money where my mouth is by buying locally and voting to raise my tax dollars. I don't say this to be all high and mighty but to show that some people rather just write on a computer forum than get off their duff and do something.
What do *YOU* do besides sound the same note over and over again while on a computer forum?
wacocelt
12-16-2004, 15:48
Though I don't agree with hardly any of the posts in this thread I will say this. I respect and appreciate the passion with which everyone has approached and or attacked this topic. I see all too many people these days stifling themselves and thier opinions because they feel it just doesn't do any good to express themselves to others.
I believe it's equally important to TRY and see where the other person is coming from, very important, because if we don't we are just furthering the biases that will someday kill our children. Whether those biases lead to pollution, stress or violence, they damn sure don't lead to anything useful or compassionate. Be well.
I plan on chuckling. You readily claim it is false, don't say otherwise. Then, in the best Orwellian voice claim it is the words, not the facts that matter. You can get a great job with the Bush administration! :-)
Alas, I've only know this fact for 10 yrs or so. Of course, I am only 3 decades old. :)
I don't say any such thing. It's the meaning of words that are important. Not who said them. No one knows whether it was Socrates or Aristotle, or a combination of both, who was speaking a couple of millennia ago. But the words continue to influence.
Scholars spend lifetimes trying to figure out who really wrote the scriptures of the world's persistent religions, but that in no way negates the meanings and wisdom of some of the words.
Weary
I don't say any such thing. It's the meaning of words that are important. Not who said them. No one knows whether it was Socrates or Aristotle, or a combination of both, who was speaking a couple of millennia ago. But the words continue to influence.
Scholars spend lifetimes trying to figure out who really wrote the scriptures of the world's persistent religions, but that in no way negates the meanings and wisdom of some of the words.
Weary
Ah..so it is not the facts that count..but the words perhaps? AH! So you CAN work for the current administration. How ironic!
Remember, this all started when someone tried to give a speech to back up their point. I politely corrected it. Unlike the Bibical scriptures, we actually know the source of the speech. So again, ignoring facts -when we know what the facts are- is rather Orwellian. Try www.whitehouse.gov for some consulting jobs! Amazing how a liberal like yourself can fit into a conservative environment. But, both people on both sides of the spectrum find it convenient to ignore facts when the time comes. Your ideology is blinding you to some simple facts. HEy..just like the current politicians currently in office.
And, finally, to repeat for a ****4th TIME**** because such a smart cookie such as yourself seems to have trouble comprehending what I said from day one:
"The following is generally attributed to Chief Seattle, though it is verbatim from a 1971 movie script. Though Chief Seattle never said the words, I do believe it is something worth reading".
Whatever. I'm done. I can't believe I go suckered into this pissing contest. I hang my head in shame. SEriously. I readily admit people giving into urban legends, false claims and pseudo science gets me on edge. I took it too far.
RnR, Weay, you win. Congrats. I am not ambitious enough to take this any further.
orangebug
12-16-2004, 20:34
It always a good strategy to declare them the "winners". It makes it so much easier to make your Ignore List more functional, and saves you so much time from getting wasted.
steve hiker
12-16-2004, 20:56
Mags, how many times are you going to say GOTCHA? It's getting a little old. And that crimson herring you keep dragging across the trail to divert the environmental topic is getting a little smelly. And by the way --
Chief Seattle made this very speech (printed below) in 1854. Yep, he said every word, only in an Indian language not English ... gotcha!
===================
[NOTE: The following is not Chief Seattle's original letter, since he made a speech in reply to the United States offer to buy tribal land in 1854, and did not write a letter. His speech was first transcribed from memory in the 1870s, and later revised in 1971 with some dramatic license. However, the following probably captures the essense of what Chief Seattle said in 1854 --]
How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? That idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them?
Every part of this earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every clearing and humming insect is holy in the memory and experience of my people. The sap which courses through the trees carries the memory of the red man.
The white man's dead forget the country of their birth when they go to walk among the stars. Our dead never forget this beautiful earth, for it is the mother of the red man. We are part of the earth and it is part of us. The perfumed flowers are our sisters, the deer, the horse, the great eagle, these are our brothers. The rocky crests, the juices in the meadows, the body heat of the pony, and man - all belong to the same family.
So, when the Great Chief in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land, he asks much of us. The Great Chief sends word he will reserve us a place so that we can live comfortably to ourselves. He will be our father and we will be his children.
So we will consider your offer to buy our land. But it will not be easy. For this land is sacred to us. This shining water that moves in the streams and rivers is not just water but the blood of our ancestors. If we sell you land, you must remember that it is sacred, and you must teach your children that it is sacred and that the ghostly reflection in the clear water of the lakes tells us events and memories in the life of my people.
The water's murmur is the voice of my father's father. The rivers are our brothers, they quench our thirst. The rivers carry our cannoes, feed our children. If we sell our land, you must learn, and teach your children, that the rivers are our brothers, and yours, and you must henceforth give the rivers the kindness you would give any brother.
We know that the white man does not understand our ways. One portion of the land is the same to him as the next, for he is a stranger who comes in the night and takes from the land whatever he needs. The earth is not his brother, but his enemy, and when he has conquered it, he moves on. He leaves his father's grave behind, and he does not care. He kidnaps the earth from his children, and he does not care. His father's grave and his children's birthright are forgotten.
He treats his mother, the earth, and his brother, the sky, as things to be bought, plundered, sold like sheep or bright beads. His appetite will devour the earth and leave behind only a desert.
I do not know. Our ways are different than yours. The sight of your cities pains the eyes of the red man. There is no quiet place in the white man's cities. No place to hear the unfurling leaves in spring, or the rustle of an insect's wings. But perhaps it is because I am a savage and do not understand.
The clatter only seems to insult the ears. And what is there to life if man cannot hear the lonely cry of the whippoorwill or the arguments of the frogs around a pond at night? I am red man and do not understand.
The Indian prefers the soft sound of the wind darting over the face of a pond, and the smell of the wind itself, cleaned by a mid-day rain, or scented by the pinon pine. The air is precious to the red man, for all things share the same breath - the beast, the tree, the man, they all share the same breath.
The white man does not seem to notice the air he breathes. Like a man dying for many days is numb to the stench. But if we sell you our land, you must remember that the air is precious to us, that the air shares its spirit with all the life it supports. The wind that gave our grandfather his first breath also receives his last sigh. And if we sell you our land, you must keep it apart and sacred, as a place where even the white man can go to taste the wind that is sweetened by the meadow's flowers.
So we will consider your offer to buy our land. If we decide to accept, I'll make one condition, the white man must treat the beasts of this land as his brothers. I am a savage and I do not understand any other way.
I have seen a thousand rotting buffalos on the prairie, left by the white man who shot them from a passing train. I am a savage and I do not understand how the smoking iron horse can be more important than the buffalo that we kill only to stay alive. What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would die from a great loneliness of spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man. All things are connected.
You must teach the children that the ground beneath their feet is the ashes of your grandfathers. So that they will respect the land, tell your children that the earth is rich with the lives of our kin. Teach your children what we have taught our children, that the earth is our mother.
Whatever befalls the earth, befalls the sons of the earth. If men spit upon the ground, they spit upon themselves. This we know, the earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth. This we know.
All things are connected like the blood which unites one family. All things are connected. Whatever befalls the earth, befalls the sons of the earth. Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.
Even the white man, whose God walks and talks with him as friend to friend, cannot be exempt from the common destiny. We may be brothers after all. We shall see. One thing we know, which the white man may discover one day - our God is the same God.
You may think you know that you own Him as you wish to own our land, but you cannot. He is the God of man, and His compassion is equal for the red man and the white. This earth is precious to him, and to harm the earth is to heap contempt on its Creator.
The whites too shall pass, perhaps sooner than all other tribes. Contaminate your bed, and you will one night suffocate in your own waste. But in your perishing you will shine brightly, fired by the strength of the God who brought you to this land and for some special purpose gave you dominion over this land and over the red man.
That destiny is a mystery to us, for we do not understand when the buffalo are all slaughtered, the wild horses are tamed, the secret corners of the forest heavy with the scent of many men, and the view of the ripe hills blotted by talking wires.
Where is the thicket? Gone. Where is the eagle? Gone. The end of living and beginning of survival. -- Chief Sealth (Seattle)
Jack Tarlin
12-16-2004, 21:17
Thanks, Steve, for entirely missing the point of this tiresome discussion:
The words are attributed to him, there is no evidence he actually said them, and there is considerable reason to believe the speech was either greatly embellished, or was, in fact, a modern invention.
But, thanks, Steve, for your timely and informative comments. They added a lot to the discussion.
I can't believe this thread is still sailing merrily along: A question to Rocks: You started this thread. You've posted to it around 20 times. You've criticized any number of folks for having a zeal for the environment that pales in comparison to your own. You've bragged about your own compassion for environmental issues and you've bragged about your volunteer work (something most volunteers DON'T do, by the way). And most frequently of all, after placing yourself firmly on your pedestal, you criticized everyone who's environmental record and history is less than your own.
You recently took someone to task and said you'd respect him more "if he addressed the long term outcome of sprawl and how it affects the planet and the A.T."
This was on the 15th of this month.
Oddly enough, on the very same day you invoked the thread of sprawl for the two thousandth time, you sent along another thread to Whiteblaze, in which you informed us that you shopped at Wal-Mart, and that it was a really cool place to get hiker food like crab and shrimp.
So I gotta admit I'm curious.
When we talk about the insidious affects of sprawl and development, Rocks, does Wal-Mart get a pass cuz you like to shop there? And is the environment well-served if you not only shop there, but encourage others to do so?
Please explain.
Here's something else to ponder, Rocks: People that like to whine about folks who build and live in big glass houses probably shouldn't shop at Wal-Mart.
Or if they do, they might not want to boast of it.
[QUOTE=steve hiker]Mags, how many times are you going to say GOTCHA? It's getting a little old. And that crimson herring you keep dragging across the trail to divert the environmental topic is getting a little smelly. And by the way --
Chief Seattle made this very speech (printed below) in 1854. Yep, he said every word, only in an Indian language not English ... gotcha
Steve, as we said repeatedly. it was transcribed 30 yrs later after the speech was made.. No one knows what the speech was for sure. Do you? I sure as heck don't. Since I don't speak his language, the person who transcribed it didn't, and it was written 30 yrs later, I doubt ANY of us know for sure. Gotcha!
FURTHERMORE ***THE REAL TOPIC OF THE THREAD** is environmental terrorists burning down a house. Since it is quite probable they did not do it, this whole sorry thread should be over. It is not about environmental topics..it is about houses getting burnt down.
The topic is "Evironmental Terrorism In Maryland". Capish?
But, as I told Weary, RnR. You win. OK? Sound good?
steve hiker
12-16-2004, 21:32
Chief Seattle made this very speech (printed below) in 1854. Yep, he said every word, only in an Indian language not English ... gotcha]
Steve, as we said repeatedly. it was transcribed 30 yrs later after the speech was made.. No one knows what the speech was for sure. Do you? I sure as heck don't. Since I don't speak his language, the person who transcribed it didn't, and it was written 30 yrs later, I doubt ANY of us know for sure. Gotcha!
Damn Mags, if you don't get THAT, I'm just going to give up. :rolleyes: You win.
Now, I'm not following the scent of this red herring any longer. I say we burn all environmentally damaging developments and lynch the developers along with the negros. :bse (That outta get things going in a different direction.)
Tim Rich
12-16-2004, 21:43
They've charged the security guard with the crime, so I guess we need to change the name of the thread...
http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/2004/12/16/ap/headlines/d8712mgg0.txt
orangebug
12-16-2004, 23:57
Nah, it is so much more fun to channel the real agenda of the real perpetrators...
Jack Tarlin
12-17-2004, 17:39
Just watch, now someone's gonna post "Well, even if it wasn't an environmentalist who started the fire, it woulda been perfectly OK if it was, cuz it's the message that really matters!"
Kinda like, "Well yeah, this guy most likely never really said all this cool and profound stuff, but it's perfectly OK to cite him and quote him anyway, cuz it's the message that really matters!"
Gee, does this mean this thread is finally gonna fade out? I'm heartbroken.
Alligator
12-17-2004, 17:46
I don't know Jack, he may have been an ELF sleeper agent. I heard he had some screenplay from 1971 tucked in his pocket when he was arrested...
Just watch, now someone's gonna post "Well, even if it wasn't an environmentalist who started the fire, it woulda been perfectly OK if it was, cuz it's the message that really matters!" Kinda like, "Well yeah, this guy most likely never really said all this cool and profound stuff, but it's perfectly OK to cite him and quote him anyway, cuz it's the message that really matters!" Gee, does this mean this thread is finally gonna fade out? I'm heartbroken.
Okay, Jack. I'll rise to the bait. What message do you think the arsonist was giving, and why do you think so? Those of us who have been involved in the environmental movement for years know that no main stream environmental group promotes arson, or had anything to do with this arson. There are always a few kooks who do kooky things as a result of their delusions, but only fellow nuts and right wing bigots think that these folks have anything to do with the environment.
Weary
orangebug
12-17-2004, 23:35
... but only fellow nuts and right wing bigots think that these folks have anything to do with the environment. Damn, but that was what many of us were saying, although I doubt political identification of the "fellow nuts" is limited to right wing bigots. We've heard from a couple of left wing bigots.
I'm encouraged that you recognize the problem. Acceptance leads to healing.
BTW, read a few news reports to see what the man's motivations are alleged to have been. It is in the public domain. It doesn't require channeling.
RenaissanceMan98
12-18-2004, 00:46
sigh
sometimes i fear that the internet is destroying the comeraderie of the trail
....I doubt political identification of the "fellow nuts" is limited to right wing bigots. ....
As do I. My original message was that "only fellow nuts AND right wing...."
"Fellow nuts" are spread across the political spectrum. "Right wing bigots" are a political subset with vivid imaginations when it comes to liberals and environmental issues.
That's why from time to time I publicly proclaim my liberalism. It's an educational effort. I try to expose the right to a bit of reality.
Weary
wacocelt
12-18-2004, 12:58
Okay, Jack. I'll rise to the bait. What message do you think the arsonist was giving, and why do you think so? Those of us who have been involved in the environmental movement for years know that no main stream environmental group promotes arson, or had anything to do with this arson. There are always a few kooks who do kooky things as a result of their delusions, but only fellow nuts and right wing bigots think that these folks have anything to do with the environment.
OK, I'm not Jack, but I'de like to toss in my 2 cents anywho. Perhaps the security guard, if it actually was him and not a disgruntled employee or even a materials contractor trying to make more cash, was tired of guarding all of these huge, beautiful, empty houses which theres no way in Hell he would ever be able to afford. Then again, there may not be a rational explanation at all, at all. Boredom has bred some rather strange activities, destructive and non and when confronted the perpetrator often reverts to the favorite excuse of most children so often and hilariously pointed out by Bill cosby 'I dunno...'
I don't recall the source, but I can't help but think of a very early Anarchist quote "The urge to destroy is a creative one." Now before anyone goes on a tangent and starts railing against me, I'm not playing Devil's Advocate, merely trying to put some spice of perspective into the **** sammich this thread has become.
I love you guys, man!
OK, I'm not Jack, but I'de like to toss in my 2 cents anywho. Perhaps the security guard, if it actually was him and not a disgruntled employee or even a materials contractor trying to make more cash, was tired of guarding all of these huge, beautiful, empty houses which theres no way in Hell he would ever be able to afford. Then again, there may not be a rational explanation at all, at all. Boredom has bred some rather strange activities, destructive and non and when confronted the perpetrator often reverts to the favorite excuse of most children so often and hilariously pointed out by Bill cosby 'I dunno...'!
A Washington Post story says the alleged arsonist, age 21, has had a rather disturbed history, and suggests that a possible cause was the accidental death of a child, and what the guard thought was less than proper concern over the death by the company he worked for.
It strikes me as a very sad situation. The Post says at the arraignment the guy "avoided eye contact" with his pregnant wife.
Weary
Blue Jay
12-18-2004, 20:49
sigh
sometimes i fear that the internet is destroying the comeraderie of the trail
Don't worry about that. This is just a silly game played in between long joy filled hikes.
wacocelt
12-18-2004, 21:22
This is just a silly game played in between long joy filled hikes.
Agreed, you'll find that folks tend much more towards the dramatic when they can't see the soul shining behind the eyes of the person they are adressing. They also take thier beliefs and opinions to extremes which they wouldn't and most likely couldn't when faced with thier online adversary in person. As frustrating and confusing as people may be to me online, I still have faith that there is a common good and benevolence in our fellow man, despite sometimes ignorantly severe differences in beliefs and opinions.
Rocks 'n Roots
12-26-2004, 02:54
Like I told you before, this nation isn't the same as it used to be. I read they were picking up a half dozen other persons involved with the arson. What incentive would a bunch of other persons have because a company treated a death in the family so poorly? It's a new world here in America. A lot of it isn't very truthful...
Are you trying to say that the media is trying to protect the hidden agenda of these arsonists whom you believe to be environmental terrorists? The facts point to arson for personal revenge. I am thankful that it seems as though environmentalists have not gotten a black eye here. Are you dissapointed that it was not a crazy, misguided environmentalist operation?:confused:
but rock and roll is here to stay:sun neo
Rocks 'n Roots
12-26-2004, 15:45
I'm curious why a half dozen others would want to torch a controversial development "because somebody got bad treatment from their employer during a death in the family incident".
Would somebody please explain why 6 others would risk their personal well-being for a minor employment matter they weren't involved with?
I'm curious why a half dozen others would want to torch a controversial development "because somebody got bad treatment from their employer during a death in the family incident". Would somebody please explain why 6 others would risk their personal well-being for a minor employment matter they weren't involved with?
Well, if one can believe the papers, always a dubious assumption, one guy apparently has confessed. All others remain remain innocent until otherwise proven.
However, there apparently is a sense of the inevitable in minimum wage circles, that nothing that happens is likely to be much worse than the present.
Weary
orangebug
12-26-2004, 21:00
... Would somebody please explain why 6 others would risk their personal well-being for a minor employment matter they weren't involved with?Why not ask your OUIGJI Board?
Rocks 'n Roots
12-26-2004, 22:15
I think the reason OB resorts to flaming is because he knows the reason...
TJ aka Teej
12-27-2004, 00:08
I have to confess, if this was the race track I would find it very difficult to say it was entirely wrong.
You confess there are circumstances where you would endorse arson?
You're much more disturbed than I thought. And that's saying a lot...
orangebug
12-27-2004, 11:00
I think the reason OB resorts to flaming is because he knows the reason...
Yup, I am not surprised that you anticipate that I'm a member of the conspiracy. :bse
I have no idea what these guys' motivations were, if indeed they did the arson. I've read news reports and heard NPR interviews on the subject. I anticipate that routine police work and interrogation will devine "the reason." I do not expect that reason to be laudable, more likely it will be pitiful.
I do know that the great majority of people I've met in prisons are there for crimes involving stupidity. (I'm straining to recall one that wasn't.) I am surprised you haven't slept those folks, especially as you condone arson as an appropriate action against those you find objectionable.
Rocks 'n Roots
12-27-2004, 20:02
Intelligent people can see that those who lay in wait for snipes only do so by relying on distortion and conspicuous omission of the greater matters at hand.
I condone arson no more than you condone environmental destruction by economy and the damage it will do. It's obvious some people are blind to this and rely on confidence in the system that is most proveably responsible for the damage. That confidence isn't backed by sound environmental practices or futures. Instead of dealing with this in discussion these lesser minds prefer to make arson accusations.
Does forcing this into an arson case solve any of the sprawl problems addressed above?
orangebug
12-27-2004, 22:20
I believe that you started this as an arson case involving "Evironmental Terrorism In Maryland." I didn't see sprawl mentioned until you began channeling the Reason that these alleged Evironmental Terrorists in Maryland committed their crime.
And no, you didn't solve any of the sprawl problems by moving to a barrier island in Florida.
I believe that you started this as an arson case involving "Evironmental Terrorism In Maryland." I didn't see sprawl mentioned until you began channeling the Reason that these alleged Evironmental Terrorists in Maryland committed their crime.
OB. In the interest of a rational discussion don't you think "speculating" might be a more accurate description than "channeling."
Actually, I don't recall RnR doing either. His first message was simply reporting the news and noting the speculation in the press about environmentalists being involved.
His second said merely, "I have to confess, if this was the race track I would find it very difficult to say it was entirely wrong. In this case though, it's obvious that it can't help environmentalism. Even if no one is really listening or doing anything about deforestation and sprawl anyway. This is just a security matter on the way to total development as seen in Atlanta..."
It strikes me as a bit far fetched to translate these statements as meaning the poster favors arson in the interest of avoiding sprawl.
Weary
TJ aka Teej
12-28-2004, 11:38
It strikes me as a bit far fetched to translate these statements as meaning the poster favors arson in the interest of avoiding sprawl.
He said what he said, Weary.
I have to confess, if this was the race track I would find it very difficult to say it was entirely wrong.
It says much about Roxy that when called on about yet another of his bizarre postings he dodges away, crying that it isn't fair to quote him.
1) The property-versus-life concern is a false dichotomy IMO. Property is the means by which life is sustained, a store of labor's fruits. To attack someone's property is to attack their life. A consistent person who has a moral objection to murder would also have a problem with taking someone's property against their will when they have not committed fraud or initiated force against another. That would rule out income tax, property tax, zoning, prior-restraint environmental regualtion, ER about issues that don't directly affect other people's property, etc., of course.
My apologies for asking this in an out of context kind of thread. But I've run out of search time for the more appropriate threads. I am, however, curious. So here's the question.
Minnesotasmith, what, if any, should be the appropriate response of this nation and the world to the 45,000 deaths in southeast Asia? Under what circumstances in your somewhat different, but increasingly popular political beliefs, should the taxes of Americans be used to alleviate the impacts of natural disasters, on this country or elsewhere?
minnesotasmith
12-28-2004, 18:24
1) "...what, if any, should be the appropriate response of this nation and the world to the 45,000 deaths in southeast Asia?"
IMO, the U.S. Gov't should offer public statements of condolences to the citizens of those countries, make some modest effort to track what's up with our own citizens over there, and that's about it. Perhaps they could go so far as to make research data in the US Gov's possession (US Geological Survey, Army Corp of Engineers, etc.) on how to reduce risk in the future available to affected countries we have no current quarrel with for the cost of duplication (no profit or loss on the transaction), but that would be the absolute moral limit IMO.
Any private citizen that wants to set up a fund for voluntary contributions to go to countries not on our current s**tlist due to national interest should be free to do so, being otherwise neither helped nor hindered by the gov't. I like how this one Objectivist female spokeswoman put it, when asked what would happen to the "needy" in a nation operating under Objectivist principles: "If you wish to help them, you will not be stopped.".
=============================================
2) "Under what circumstances in your somewhat different, but increasingly popular political beliefs, should the taxes of Americans be used to alleviate the impacts of natural disasters, on this country or elsewhere?"
First off, under no circumstances whatsoever should IMO Fedgov money be used to help specific individuals or businesses, directly or indirectly. I favor a Constitutional amendment that the national gov't should never be able to give so much as a nickel to any person, business, or other unit of gov't, except in fair exchange at market rates for goods or services rendered to the Fedgov. Likewise, I don't think that one state's gov't should send money to another in the event of a disaster. Now, if the governor of a neighboring state wants to give some nonessential employees time off without pay to go help out during a disaster, that is probably reasonable. (Of course, any nonessential gov't employee should arguably not have had a gov't job in the first place.)
Within a state, it gets a bit more complicated. I am long since wearied of people living in earthquake zones acting as if earthquakes are a complete surprise when they occur, just as Floridians acted surprised by hurricane strikes by the hundred thousand this past summer, people who choose to live in known flood plains are shocked when their houses get a foot of water inside them, etc., etc. I would like to see some public education about risk (done no higher than the state level), which virtually every location in the country carries, of one type or another, but gov't after-the-fact reactions otherwise generally limited to expressions of sympathy, and perhaps a suggestion that they may either want to not live in a location with a risk that they are unwilling to put up with, or should prepare against better in the future. It is only justice for poor life decisions to carry poor results, and grossly unjust to punish the wise by taking from them to subsidize the unwise.
Still, though, the legitimate role of gov't at every level does not include charity, which is a type of income redistribution, a taking money with a gun from people who earned that money (and thus deserve to keep it), and giving it to other people who did NOT earn it (and thus do not deserve to receive it). Some public health measures against epidemics (common following disasters) are likely unavoidable on occasion, but the state gov't can probably limit itself to police activity in that regard, e.g., enforcing quarantines and shooting looters. Certainly, private charity work within the country after disasters should not be interfered with by the gov't at any level, if no harm or fraud is being done by it. I would shut FEMA down yesterday, and have the Red Cross have no better and no worse tax situation than any similar other large organization such as Pfizer, say. As I believe in almost no taxation, that would mean that neither would pay taxes to the state or feds.
Here is what Ayn Rand said about charity, which I think is about right:
From http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=faq_index#obj_q7
"What was Ayn Rand's view on charity?
"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue." "
Also:
From http://www.freedomsnest.com/cgi-bin/q.cgi?subject=charity
"Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one cannot give that which has not been created. Creation comes before distribution- or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary. Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible. We praise an act of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement."
I happen to think that our priorities WRT charity and achievement are precisely backwards, and should be switched.
Does that answer your questions completely enough for this setting, weary?
:clap MS,
Wow. I am sufficiently pleased at your post to praise it with my first.
As much as I do like to entertain the concepts of Ayn from a purely philosophical perspective, I do believe that there is some room for charity on an individual level. More than “room”; I should say that I believe that charity is necessary for personal character development. This is not to say that I believe in “hand outs” to those who are currently suffering from the consequences of their actions, though. In the specific case mentioned above, the disaster is clearly “beyond the Pale”, and is not something that anyone could have reasonably predicted. I believe that in this case, personal contributions to relief organizations are a noble deed.
minnesotasmith
12-28-2004, 23:31
For those wanting a tightly written summary of what Objectivists believe and why they believe it, any of these are good places to start:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_pobs
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_essentials
Or, just read the novels "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged". AS is the longer and more important book, but a reader will get more out of it if he reads TF first. Women in particular tend to like that the female characters are NOT two-dimensional, as so many were in literature of the time those books were written (1943 and 1957, respectively). I reread them both approximately annually.
I think that Objectivism can almost be boiled down to this: "Neither the dishonest nor dishonesty have anything to offer the honest.".
================================================== ======
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro
by Ayn Rand
At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_fiction#atlas), one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:
1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
2. Epistemology: Reason
3. Ethics: Self-interest
4. Politics: Capitalism
If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" or "Wishing won't make it so." 2. "You can't eat your cake and have it, too." 3. "Man is an end in himself." 4. "Give me liberty or give me death."
If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.
My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:
Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
1)[i]Does that answer your questions completely enough for this setting, weary?
Well, you certainly answered my question very well. Though as I suspect you suspect, your answer is not my answer in all it's aspects.
I agree the flood insurance program -- at least as it's practiced in Maine -- should be abolished. I find it fascinating that it is one of the few federal programs that conservatives in power never attack.
But essentially, flood insurance along coastal Maine is simply a federal subsidy that allows the wealthy to build houses on sand beaches, without the penalty that nature would otherwise enact.
And I agree, of course, that people should donate to charities of their choice for whatever reasons that make them happy to do so.
Because I don't have a great deal of money to give away, and thus have no hope of significantly eliminating poverty or disease or other recurring afflictions, I personally limit my charitable gifts mostly to permanent things that will have an impact in the long term. Thus I founded a town land trust and regularly contribute to the acquisition of land and promote the building of trails on that land.
Few of us have the resources to buy the land needed for a five mile walking trail. But most of us have the resources that if pooled together would allow the purchase of enough land for such trails. Henry Thoreau, who also loved to walk, 150 years urged that each town create 1,000 acre public forests for the benefit of a town's residence. Since my town wasn't willing to do it on its own, the land trust I founded took it upon itself to do so. At my last check we were at 800 acres and counting.
But I do strongly disagree with your contention about governments not using tax dollars to assist other countries in the alleviation of unforseen natural disasters. Again, my disagreement deals with practicalities and efficiency. Just as 2,000 mile long continuous trails pretty much require government intervention to remain unbroken, these natural UNFORSEEN disasters can only be efficiently responded to during the emergency phase, at least, by governments.
Only governments have the resources to respond quickly enough to relieve immediate suffering. This is not simply being altruistic. We have to live in the world of nations. A wealthy nation with a tiny percent of the worlds population, consuming a great portion of the world's resources from time to time finds it useful to have allies. A few taxpayer bucks contributed in solving world problems are likely to be repaid many fold.
Weary
minnesotasmith
12-31-2004, 06:03
"But I do strongly disagree with your contention about governments not using tax dollars to assist other countries in the alleviation of unforseen natural disasters. Again, my disagreement deals with practicalities and efficiency. Just as 2,000 mile long continuous trails pretty much require government intervention to remain unbroken, these natural UNFORSEEN disasters can only be efficiently responded to during the emergency phase, at least, by governments."
Again, gov'ts are the LEAST efficient way to do most anything. What's the saying: "Governments can only do two things efficiently: make war, and inflate the currency.". No one is forbidding the charity-minded of the world from putting together ahead of time large organizations funded primarily (should be solely) by voluntary, earned contributions. Oh, wait, isn't there a Red Cross, CARE, Doctors Without Borders, and a gazillion other similiar groups existing already?
Besides, efficiency is no excuse as a way of doing something that one has no right to do, that perhaps should not be done at all (think of how welfare has destroyed the black urban family, and think of foreign aid as welfare writ large in the world as a comparable act). "Efficiency" was no justification for the Nazi death camps or the Soviet slave labor camps, just as it would be no excuse for someone choosing to rob a bank rather than to earn a living. Sometimes, the right thing is the hard thing, not the response an overly emotional grade-schooler might resort to.
"Only governments have the resources to respond quickly enough to relieve immediate suffering."
See the above paragraph for multiple refutations of considering this as relevant and true.
"This is not simply being altruistic. We have to live in the world of nations. A wealthy nation with a tiny percent of the worlds population, consuming a great portion of the world's resources from time to time finds it useful to have allies. A few taxpayer bucks contributed in solving world problems are likely to be repaid many fold"
The U.S. Gov't has a Constitutional and moral obligation to defend American citizens, not to bribe other nations. Remember the cry, "Billions for defense -- not one cent for tribute!"? I believe that is how the gov't must behave to this day. Whatever amount the gov't has to have to kill any foreigners who attacks Americans and their property -- the gov't should have that (via import tariffs and user fees -- no property/income taxes), and virtually no more. No matter how wrenching the Sally Struthers-narrated closeups of Ethiopians with distended bellies and flies in their noses, no right for the US Fedgov to give away one cent to nonAmericans is created, no matter those noncitizen's type or degree of trouble. Need does not constitute a claim. Neither does a demonstratably false appeal to twist the meaning of the unambigous word "defend" suffice to allow the gov't to give money to foreigners, instead of using its taxes for actual defense.
Blue Jay
12-31-2004, 08:40
Minnisota, it's so strange, I agree with your position on dogs on the trail and have always favored Rand's philosophy. Yet after reading your posts I always have an intense desire to go to a shelter and get a dog to hike with and vote for more government control over our lives. It's not just that I don't like you (which is true) but you have an absolutelyamazing way with words, it's almost antipoetic.
[i]....Again, gov'ts are the LEAST efficient way to do most anything. .... Besides, efficiency is no excuse as a way of doing something that one has no right to do, ....
Since governments were created by people, and are controlled by people they will never be perfect. But they do a number of things better than private associations -- like acquiring the land needed for long distance trails, building highways, creating educational systems that ensure most kids get a semblance of an education ....
As for what government has a "right" to do. Governments were created by people to do whatever people want them to do. Governments go wrong when they fail to listen to the needs of all people, thus it is not surprising that we are still seeing the results of centuries of slavery, followed by a century of voting restrictions and government enforced poverty on some black families, 40 years after voting rights were largely instituted and blatant discrimination alleviated.
Weary
Blue Jay
12-31-2004, 12:34
Give it up Weary, he's a Randy. They are far more rigid than any religious fundamentalist ever could be. A fundamentalist at least is subordanent to God. A Randy is God, the self is the only reality.
TJ aka Teej
12-31-2004, 18:38
Mark Twain's cynical rebuttal of egoism "What is man?" predates Objectivism, but nonetheless stands Objectivism on its head. http://users.telerama.com/~joseph/wman.html (http://users.telerama.com/~joseph/wman.html)
If shallow philosophy is what you want, Rand's your girl.
Give it up Weary, he's a Randy. They are far more rigid than any religious fundamentalist ever could be. A fundamentalist at least is subordanent to God. A Randy is God, the self is the only reality.
Of course. I just try to occasionally give a message to Randy wannabes, the kids too uneducated to read the books, but who might be influenced by an occasional paragraph in opposition.
I know. It's not a very productive exercise on my part. I welcome alternative suggestions.
Weary
minnesotasmith
01-03-2005, 00:17
"As for what government has a "right" to do. Governments were created by people to do whatever people want them to do."
Both Rand and I take the position that the Founding Fathers of the U.S. did, a position completely at odd with socialists such as the Nazis, Soviets, and most U.S. politicians in office today (and their supporters). That is, there are numerous acts that no government and no individuals have the "right" to do, no matter how lopsided a vote in favor of doing so would be. Genocide (ala the Nazi Holocaust or the larger versions the Soviets and Chinese Communists chose to commit) and income redistribution are two perfect examples of this. If I agree with Thomas Jefferson, but you agree with Josef Stalin, what do you think that says about each of our philosophies?
Blue Jay
01-03-2005, 09:11
Jefferson was not even remotely a Randy (I know she wasn't born yet) and you know it. She would not like your willful and blatent misrepresentation, just to try and make a point.
"As for what government has a "right" to do. Governments were created by people to do whatever people want them to do." Both Rand and I take the position that the Founding Fathers of the U.S. did, a position completely at odd with socialists such as the Nazis, Soviets, and most U.S. politicians in office today (and their supporters). That is, there are numerous acts that no government and no individuals have the "right" to do, no matter how lopsided a vote in favor of doing so would be. Genocide (ala the Nazi Holocaust or the larger versions the Soviets and Chinese Communists chose to commit) and income redistribution are two perfect examples of this. If I agree with Thomas Jefferson, but you agree with Josef Stalin, what do you think that says about each of our philosophies?
Hmmm. I must confess I have one or two Rand books kicking around here among the couple of thousand or so that used to upset my father-in-law so. "Once you have read a book, throw it out," was his message. Though when he died I found all of his 1930s engineering books carefully boxed away.
However, I've never actually finished anything Ayn wrote. They all struck me as simplistic and boring. I certainly agree that governments should kill people only as a last resort. Which is why I'm opposed to the death penalty and this trumped up war we are now engaged in, among other things.
But to equate the hollocaust with taxation and the feeding of starving kids strikes me as a bit far fetched, possibly even dumb. Nor have I yet been able to figure out why tariffs are more morally correct than taxes. Besides, we never would have had enough money to buy the land needed to maintain the Appalachian Trail had we relied only on tariffs.
Think about how many more folks us liberals would insist on supporting on welfare had tariffs made it impossible for Walmart to shift much of our manufacturing base to China, in the interest of lowering prices and maximizing profits.
Weary
TJ aka Teej
01-03-2005, 11:02
[QUOTE=minnesotasmith]Both Rand and I take the position that the Founding Fathers of the U.S. did,QUOTE]
Oh, really?
"Love your neighbor as yourself and your country more than yourself."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Jefferson Smith, February 21, 1825
Rocks 'n Roots
01-04-2005, 16:43
The NY Times had an article today telling how 5 more persons were arrested in connection with the Maryland arson incident. Amongst the list of vague reasons speculated for the act the Times said perceived mistreatment by Lennar of an empolyee after a death in the family, failure to hire one individual, dislike for the company, possible racism (because blacks were buying some of the houses), and the loss of roads for racing cars were the reasons for the arson.
The Times said these individuals had conspired together under "operation payback" - a plan designed to hit Lennar for its alleged offenses.
OK, sounds like a group of dummies may have had a personal grudge against Lennar. However, what I find most outstanding is how the Times completely fails to mention the fact that the development project was controversial and ate into one of Maryland's most threatened wetlands. I would bet if you were allowed to get the real truth from those allegedly "disgruntled" individuals you would find the environmental aspect was not completely uninfluential. I trust the media to vet this objectively and not take a status quo posture or leave out facts in favor of an establishment perspective or interest. (Ya)
Our local paper had a picture today of two Lennar managers handing two $25,000 checks to local charities. The picture was in the "Community" section of the paper.
Last week the Babcock Ranch preservation project was shot down by the land owner. The 90,000 acre parcel was said to be critical to the survival of the Florida Panther as a species and necessary to buffer the nation's second fastest sprawling city of Ft Myers. The land owner cited that the $400 million offered by the state was too far below the $1.3 billion assessment soaring local land values have caused...
I wonder where Lennar is on that?
Last week the Babcock Ranch preservation project was shot down by the land owner. The 90,000 acre parcel was said to be critical to the survival of the Florida Panther as a species and necessary to buffer the nation's second fastest sprawling city of Ft Myers. The land owner cited that the $400 million offered by the state was too far below the $1.3 billion assessment soaring local land values have caused...
I wonder where Lennar is on that?
I wonder how this will play itself out. The state could try to buy the land under writ of eminent domain at a price set by the state. Could be a court gamble. in a worse case scenerio if the land owner did try to sell the land to developers it would be interesting to see how the sale and develpement would be blocked.
RR do you have a link to the article?
...I would bet if you were allowed to get the real truth from those allegedly "disgruntled" individuals you would find the environmental aspect was not completely uninfluential. I trust the media to vet this objectively and not take a status quo posture or leave out facts in favor of an establishment perspective or interest. (Ya)...
I think the answer is pretty clear. Competent newspapers don't go out of their way to speculate about matters for which there so far is not a shred of evidence.
Weary
I wonder how this will play itself out. The state could try to buy the land under writ of eminent domain at a price set by the state. Could be a court gamble. in a worse case scenerio if the land owner did try to sell the land to developers it would be interesting to see how the sale and develpement would be blocked.
RR do you have a link to the article?
In florida in order to take land under eminent domain the land has to be developed for public use. They can not just take it for "conservation" purposes.
I have land that borders state land (which we gave the state) and they have been trying to take the rest for years (no good deed goes unpunished). The courts have repeatedly backed us on this point.
Rocks 'n Roots
01-05-2005, 01:32
I think the answer is pretty clear. Competent newspapers don't go out of their way to speculate about matters for which there so far is not a shred of evidence.
Weary
Hmm, this coming from somebody who was talking about 'honesty' and such before in debates over the AT. Seems what you wrote is just another way of saying "we have ways we justify not telling the entire truth". If you look at the same newspaper I'll bet you'll find plenty of speculation if it suits the right cause. For instance, I wonder what their position was on the WMD's? "Not a shred of evidence"???
orangebug
01-05-2005, 08:15
At least newspapers wouldn't channel to get their speculations.
Tim Rich
01-05-2005, 08:39
Roxy, in your mind, this:
I think the answer is pretty clear. Competent newspapers don't go out of their way to speculate about matters for which there so far is not a shred of evidence.
Weary
means this?
Hmm, this coming from somebody who was talking about 'honesty' and such before in debates over the AT. Seems what you wrote is just another way of saying "we have ways we justify not telling the entire truth". If you look at the same newspaper I'll bet you'll find plenty of speculation if it suits the right cause. For instance, I wonder what their position was on the WMD's? "Not a shred of evidence"???
You've now entered the realm where you believe Weary isn't just stating a blindingly obvious fact, but rather that he has to defend a newspaper for NOT engaging in wag the dog journalism. In your world, you believe that disgruntled, bigoted street racers can't help but have a little environmentalist in them. I believe that Ft. Myers sprawl is getting to you...
Hmmm. It's all a matter of evidence guys.
I know of no evidence that channeling has ever happened and know of no mechanism that would make it possible to happen. Therefore speculation about channeling unless the alleged channellor claims that ability is nonsense.
I understand some law enforcement people at first speculated it was environmental terrorism. But that speculation ended quickly everywhere but on WhiteBlaze. Knowing something about reporters I think it likely that the bottom of the New York Times story as originally written probably had some mention of the earlier speculation. If so, it would have been clipped by an editor as irrelevant at this late date, or perhaps just to make the story fit the available space.
As for the weapons of mass destruction. The evidence was certainly vague at best, but as the self-styled "newspaper of record" the Times and most large newspapers will report whatever a president and his administration leaders say. The Times accompanied its report of the President's claims with many stories reporting on how flimsy was the evidence.
Weary
As for the weapons of mass destruction. The evidence was certainly vague at best,
Weary
An Internet classic that some of you may enjoy. Helps to be a little geeky :)
I find it rather funny (and sad at the same time...sigh)
http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Rocks 'n Roots
01-05-2005, 16:11
I don't doubt that contempt for the company was partly induced by the fact that the development was controversial and dug into an endangered wetlands. Whether it was worker level people who were sparked to do this makes no difference. I also think the media is obviously avoiding this for obvious reasons that have to do with the future of open space in the US and how it intends to deal with it. For all we know these guys did it purely for environmental purposes but didn't want to admit it...
Jack Tarlin
01-05-2005, 19:13
The newspapers will report "whatever the president and his administration leaders say."
Geez, Weary, give it a rest for Chrissakes, this is getting old and tired.
You're conveniently forgetting that EVERYONE at the time believed the intelligence regarding WMD, including Senators Kerry and Edwards, who, based on this intelligence, voted for the war. The newspapers likewise reported what everyone at the time, including the U.N., universally believed to be true. This includes the fabulous and fabled New York Times.
Perhaps if Kerry had bothered to attend more than a third of his Committee meetings regarding Intelligence and Foreign relations matters instead of skipping so many while running for another job, then perhaps the President would have been better informed. In point of fact, a lot of folks who SHOULD have been providing better advice didn't do so, for any number of reasons.
The President made his decisions based on the intelligence he had at hand, as did the folks who voted for the war. If he made questionable decisions, there are plenty of places to lay the blame.
TJ aka Teej
01-05-2005, 19:57
You're conveniently forgetting that EVERYONE at the time believed the intelligence regarding WMD
Not EVERYONE, Jack. Hans Blix has said repeatedly that the UN inspectors saw no evidence before the US-led invasion that Iraq had reconstituted its chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs.
And don't forget the key point of Bush's big lie: not only did Saddam have WMD, but he was about to supply terrorists with them.
If he made questionable decisions, there are plenty of places to lay the blame.
I can think of only one place. On Bush himself.
The newspapers will report "whatever the president and his administration leaders say."
Geez, Weary, give it a rest for Chrissakes, this is getting old and tired.
You're conveniently forgetting that EVERYONE at the time believed the intelligence regarding WMD, including Senators Kerry and Edwards, who, based on this intelligence, voted for the war. The newspapers likewise reported what everyone at the time, including the U.N., universally believed to be true. This includes the fabulous and fabled New York Times.
Perhaps if Kerry had bothered to attend more than a third of his Committee meetings regarding Intelligence and Foreign relations matters instead of skipping so many while running for another job, then perhaps the President would have been better informed. In point of fact, a lot of folks who SHOULD have been providing better advice didn't do so, for any number of reasons.
The President made his decisions based on the intelligence he had at hand, as did the folks who voted for the war. If he made questionable decisions, there are plenty of places to lay the blame.
Jack, Jack, Jack. That was not a political post that I made. I was defending the New York Times from the doubts and speculations of a fellow Liberal.
However, since you raise the issue. Those of us who follow these matters knew long before the invasion that the alleged reasons for the invasion were dubious at best. And we knew that regardless of the alleged reasons, war was not the right choice for solving the problems. I cite no less of an expert than Colin Powell, who warned if you break, Iraq you own it.
Outside of the United States, virtually every intelligent leader in the world knew that the invasion was a mistake. Nothing to date has proved them wrong.
Let me apologize for my failure to express these views strongly enough prior to the invasion to my friends on this list. So to avoid having to make a similar apology in the future let me say now: I strongly suspect that what we will have created in Iraq once the invasion ends will have been a heavily armed fundamental muslim dictatorship, far more committed to the destruction of the United States than the secular Saddam Hussein ever even dreamed of.
Weary
Tha Wookie
01-05-2005, 23:01
The newspapers will report "whatever the president and his administration leaders say."
Geez, Weary, give it a rest for Chrissakes, this is getting old and tired.
You're conveniently forgetting that EVERYONE at the time believed the intelligence regarding WMD, including Senators Kerry and Edwards, who, based on this intelligence, voted for the war. The newspapers likewise reported what everyone at the time, including the U.N., universally believed to be true. This includes the fabulous and fabled New York Times.
Perhaps if Kerry had bothered to attend more than a third of his Committee meetings regarding Intelligence and Foreign relations matters instead of skipping so many while running for another job, then perhaps the President would have been better informed. In point of fact, a lot of folks who SHOULD have been providing better advice didn't do so, for any number of reasons.
The President made his decisions based on the intelligence he had at hand, as did the folks who voted for the war. If he made questionable decisions, there are plenty of places to lay the blame.
What a crock, Jack. Kerry didn't put us in the quagmire. It was the other guy, remember? Voting to allow action is a lot different than actually waging a war.
HE AIN'T MY PRESIDENT!
orangebug
01-05-2005, 23:02
...I also think the media is obviously avoiding this for obvious reasons that have to do with the future of open space in the US and how it intends to deal with it. For all we know these guys did it purely for environmental purposes but didn't want to admit it...And how do you feel about having a house on a barrier island? Would you like to burn it down now, or wait for the next hurricane to finish the job?
Rocks 'n Roots
01-06-2005, 01:55
You're conveniently forgetting that EVERYONE at the time believed the intelligence regarding WMD
Jack this isn't true. However it's off-topic to this thread and will probably get it deleted...
...This includes the fabulous and fabled New York Times.
Neither fabulous nor fabled-as it once was-just jaded!
Tim Rich
01-06-2005, 10:05
I don't doubt that contempt for the company was partly induced by the fact that the development was controversial and dug into an endangered wetlands. Whether it was worker level people who were sparked to do this makes no difference. I also think the media is obviously avoiding this for obvious reasons that have to do with the future of open space in the US and how it intends to deal with it. For all we know these guys did it purely for environmental purposes but didn't want to admit it...
Doesn't the concept of bigoted racers who are closeted environmentalists clash with one of your previous hallucinations that the perpetrators were trying to send a message to the world that sprawl had to stop?
Rocks 'n Roots
01-06-2005, 16:36
Doesn't the concept of bigoted racers who are closeted environmentalists clash with one of your previous hallucinations
It holds true that several of those of us who aspire to Rush Limbaugh type views resort to personal flames instead of productive discussion of honest facts. It's obvious to me that these types unconsciously can't reconcile their anti-environmental views with their AT interest and it bugs them. Their posts are noticeably hostile and involve personal slights as their main thrust instead of on-topic thoughts. I think it's obvious to intelligent people. They are bascially anti-environmental but just don't want to admit it. That's why they work on the personal destruction people who speak up instead of dealing honestly...
Tim Rich
01-06-2005, 17:50
It holds true that several of those of us who aspire to Rush Limbaugh type views resort to personal flames instead of productive discussion of honest facts. It's obvious to me that these types unconsciously can't reconcile their anti-environmental views with their AT interest and it bugs them. Their posts are noticeably hostile and involve personal slights as their main thrust instead of on-topic thoughts. I think it's obvious to intelligent people. They are bascially anti-environmental but just don't want to admit it. That's why they work on the personal destruction people who speak up instead of dealing honestly...
Deep breath. That being said, why do you think the perps are hiding their "true" motives when you previously said this event was intended to send a message to the world that sprawl had to stop?
TJ aka Teej
01-06-2005, 20:52
...resort to personal flames instead of productive discussion of honest facts.
Roxy, in half your posts you direct personal flames at people who have asked you to provide facts to back up your wacky notions. I remember an at-l post that had an entire page of insults authored by you directed at at-l members, and I've no doubt at all that a collection of your insults directed at WhiteBlazers would be just as long. You really need to take a good look in the mirror.
Jack Tarlin
01-06-2005, 22:11
Wook:
I really don't want to rehash this---the election is a done deal in case any of you missed it---but the folks who voted for the war are absolutely partly responsible for it.
If Kerry and Edwards voted for the war (which indeed they did), then they're partly to blame for getting us into the state we're in. And if their vote was not because they genuinely believed in the war, but merely voted out of political expediency because they were afraid to vote against it, well, this is shameful.
The bottom line is that for whatever reason, they voted in favor of going to war. (Kerry also voted AGAINST helping to prosecute the war, once he voted to help start it, i.e. he was willing to vote to send people in harm's way but didn't want to provide them with the tools required to do the job onced they were there, but I don't even want to get into that. Nor do I want to re-hash his "stance" on the war, because as we all know, it changed so many times that by election day, nobody knew WHAT he actually believed. He kept talking about his "plan" for Iraq, but then neglected to tell anyone what it was. In the end, nobody had a clue what he stood for as regards the war; this was one of the many reasons he lost: Whatever his "vision" was for the country, he had a hell of a problem sharing it with us.
But for you to say, Wook, that Kerry's hands are clean here is simply wrong.
He either voted for the war because he believed in it at the time of the vote, or he voted for it because he lacked the courage to publicly oppose it at the time of the vote. For you to say he's in no way responsible is letting him off much too easy.
Wook:
I really don't want to rehash this---the election is a done deal in case any of you missed it---but the folks who voted for the war are absolutely partly responsible for it.
If Kerry and Edwards voted for the war (which indeed they did), then they're partly to blame for getting us into the state we're in. And if their vote was not because they genuinely believed in the war, but merely voted out of political expediency because they were afraid to vote against it, well, this is shameful.
The bottom line is that for whatever reason, they voted in favor of going to war. (Kerry also voted AGAINST helping to prosecute the war, once he voted to help start it, i.e. he was willing to vote to send people in harm's way but didn't want to provide them with the tools required to do the job onced they were there, but I don't even want to get into that. Nor do I want to re-hash his "stance" on the war, because as we all know, it changed so many times that by election day, nobody knew WHAT he actually believed. He kept talking about his "plan" for Iraq, but then neglected to tell anyone what it was. In the end, nobody had a clue what he stood for as regards the war; this was one of the many reasons he lost: Whatever his "vision" was for the country, he had a hell of a problem sharing it with us.
But for you to say, Wook, that Kerry's hands are clean here is simply wrong.
He either voted for the war because he believed in it at the time of the vote, or he voted for it because he lacked the courage to publicly oppose it at the time of the vote. For you to say he's in no way responsible is letting him off much too easy.
Jack. You would be more persusaive if you could get your facts right.
orangebug
01-06-2005, 22:26
As a Kerry supporter, I think that Jack has his facts fairly straight. Kerry failed to explain how he would have been an improvement over Bush, and there is a natural reluctance to change horses in midstream, or mid-war.
I think that it was reasonable to have voted for this war, given the information available to us. I think that either we have an abysmal intelligence community, or an executive branch that has great talent is looking stupid or in passing falsehoods based on selective intelligence analysis.
The election is over. We must pray for the success of our country and our government.
However, it is time to recognize that most arsons are due to rather pitiable agendas - and that the attempts to justify/rationlaize these acts via environmental agendas is an insult to environmental advocates and to the victims of these crimes.
Jack. You would be more persusaive if you could get your facts right.
Then state them for him. Can you?
Jack Tarlin
01-06-2005, 22:40
Just a wisecrack there Weary or you want to go into details? There's nothing wrong with anything I said, but if your memory is faulty, here's a reminder:
Fact: Kerry DID support the war when it was popular. By voting for it,
he supported it. What part of this does Weary fail to grasp?
Fact: He only came out against it after he started losing ground to Dean,
who at least had the integrity to stake a position and stick to it.
Fact: He did indeed vote to stop paying for the war after initially supporting
it. Check the Congressional Record if you doubt me, Weary.
Fact: Kerry did change his mind and his positions on the war numerous times,
and if did actually have a "plan" for Iraq, he never bothered to tell
anyone what it was. Gosh, Weary. Even Dan Rather admitted this.
Fact: His penchant for flip-flopping and indecisiveness was instrumental in
his failure to get undecided and independent voters. In short, it was
instrumental in his defeat.
And speaking of which, we're talking about news that is two months old:
John Kerry ran the worst presidential campaign I've ever seen, and has only himself to blame for his defeat. But defeated he was.
It's about time some folks learned to deal with it. The horse they're beating is as dead as this thread.
Goodnight, Weary. Hope you enjoy the Innaugurarion.
Jack:
You are right. Kerry should not have endorsed the resolution. But the resolve had several dozen whereases, and commited the president to working with the international community, which he is only now attempting in an effort to get out of the quagmire.
Read Richard Clark's book and you will realize that most of the whereases weren't true -- a fact that only the President and Clark knew for sure.
You can view the resolution as a commitment to war, or as an attempt to avoid war by putting more pressure on Iraq and the world community, which was wavering on the Iraq sanctions.
The war was based mostly on faulty assumptions and wishful thinking. Congress, and Kerry, endorsed the faulty assumptions. I know of no evidence that they realized how much of the planning was based on wishful thinking.
You can do your own Google search on what the resolution said. I think the key sections are as follows:
"The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
Weary
foggy-bottom
01-06-2005, 23:16
I'm with Jack. When was he ever going to tell us his plan? I'm still waiting to here it.
Rocks 'n Roots
01-06-2005, 23:43
How many subdivisions have been torched by disgruntled employees?
How many controversial wetlands compromising subdivisions have been torched by disgruntled employee(s)?
As for the off-topic WMD discussion, I think it's kind of obvious that some people need to blame Kerry in order to avoid the obvious dubiousness of the WMD's fraud (whether you realize it or not, making up false reasons for an invasion is a war crime believe it or not. I guess we in America have evolved to where we are above such minor matters - or we just chant loud enough that no one notices) ...
Tim Rich
01-07-2005, 00:10
How many subdivisions have been torched by disgruntled employees?
How many controversial wetlands compromising subdivisions have been torched by disgruntled employee(s)?
snippage ...
I don't know. If the only subdivision that's ever been torched is the one that began this thread, the answer to both is one. However, just because the subdivision had a history of environmental protests does not mean the arsonists had any inclination that they were striking back against sprawl. As you previously indicated, if this were true they'd be shouting from the rooftops to get exposure.
When you say:
I don't doubt that contempt for the company was partly induced by the fact that the development was controversial and dug into an endangered wetlands. Whether it was worker level people who were sparked to do this makes no difference. I also think the media is obviously avoiding this for obvious reasons that have to do with the future of open space in the US and how it intends to deal with it. For all we know these guys did it purely for environmental purposes but didn't want to admit it...
You're seeking to explain or rationalize the actions of others to fit your purposes. It's no different from those who seek to attribute the tsunami to global warming, and blame the United States for it.
Jack Tarlin
01-07-2005, 00:21
Ah, Weary, but he DID endorse the resolution, and in so doing, was partly responsible for the war. That's entirely my point. But I thank you for acknowledging the truth of the matter.
And yeah, I'm familiar with the book you mentioned. And by the way, the author's actual name is "Clarke", not Clark.
And thanx for stating the abridged resolution which I'm also familiar with.
And lastly, thanx for not even trying to dispute my comments regarding Kerry's initial support for the war, his self-serving turning against it, his refusal to support the troops once he voted to send them overseas, or my comments on why he lost.
I'm curious to see how he's received in Iraq this week. Quite frankly, if I were one of the young men who were sent over there partly because Kerry thought it was a good idea, (for awhile anyway), and if I'd lost friends or countrymen because certain folks in Congress didn't want to supply me with the tools and materiel necessary to complete the job once we were there-------well, I wouldn't soil myself by shaking his hand.
Something like 90% of the forward deployed troops did NOT vote for John Kerry. I wonder if he's ever asked himself why.
Tha Wookie
01-07-2005, 00:41
I'm with Jack. When was he ever going to tell us his plan? I'm still waiting to here it.
www.johnkerry.com (http://www.johnkerry.com) .... look at the links to the right. It was also in the debates, and in his regular stump speech.
But I guess since it was not on FOX, and thusly requires reading from many people, it is now a rather moot issue.
Rocks 'n Roots
01-07-2005, 00:46
Ah, Weary, but he DID endorse the resolution, and in so doing, was partly responsible for the war.
Jack is obviously distorting Kerry's involvement for less than honorable purposes. I saw a video of Kerry explaining his reasons for voting and he was clearly begrudgingly doing it only on the grounds of dangerous WMD's presenting a clear and present danger. If you presented an accurate showing of what evidence Bush had before the invasion it included an Israeli report specifically saying Saddam's army was broken and was no threat, nor did he possess any WMD's. I read this report in the Times less than a year before the invasion. It was buried afterwards and hasn't been seen since. National Security Agency reports doubting the existence of WMD's were buried and lost in the White House while Powell was war drumming in front of the cameras. Powell himself said there were no WMD's a year or so earlier. Later Bush fumbled for an excuse, doing a switcho chango to "well, he had the potential to develop WMD's" (please, isn't this the US? so much for US integrity)
Kerry stood no chance of being elected if he went against the US war machine. Only in this current US political climate would people have the hubris to make you explain yourself after having been right all along as if you had done something wrong and owed an explanation. Or why a decorated Vietnam vet would have to explain himself to a Champagne Squadron absentee...
Rocks 'n Roots
01-07-2005, 01:03
It's no different from those who seek to attribute the tsunami to global warming, and blame the United States for it.
The question was "How many wetlands-compromising controversial subdivisions were ever torched by a group?"
Tim's answer was "I don't know"...
To me it seems obvious that more was involved than just employee dissatisfaction. I'll agree it is possible that a group of knuckleheads did this for other than environmental reasons. However, it seems strange to me that the possibility is completely left out of following news reports. Losing local roads for racing is sprawl-related. A smart person would see that contempt for the company was probably enhanced by their awareness that the project was disputed and harmful to the bogs. You'll never get the Times to write that though.
The man who was mistreated during the death in the family had a direct gripe. The man who claims he wasn't hired had one. Of the four other persons who took legal risks by assisting in the operation - what was their gripe? Why would they burn down a development and risk jail because of a death in the family employer dispute of another person?
minnesotasmith
01-07-2005, 03:56
"Something like 90% of the forward deployed troops did NOT vote for John Kerry. I wonder if he's ever asked himself why."
I suspect it is for the same reason that the bulk of the Union Army troops favored re-electing Abraham Lincoln during the 1864 election. That is, all their time, efforts, discomforts, and sacrifices of blood would have been made for nothing if an appeaser was elected to the U.S. Presidency in the middle of the war they were fighting.
Blue Jay
01-07-2005, 09:18
Something like 90% of the forward deployed troops did NOT vote for John Kerry. I wonder if he's ever asked himself why.
Everyone knows why except you. If you think votes for Kerry would survive transport back to the states under our corrupt regime, I've got bridges up and down the AT to sell you. The figures I read were a lot more than 90%, which should tell you something about the state of our "democracy". Clearly they are not even trying to hide the fraud. Kerry cares about as much as the loser of professional wrassling (spelled correctly) match. The whole thing was a scam and not even a good one.
How much for those bridges?
Blue Jay
01-07-2005, 10:29
How much for those bridges?
$50 for the small ones (volume discount on 10 or more) and the best deal of all, $100 for the ones over the major rivers such as the James or the Hudson. The one on the Hudson has a toll booth for cars so you'll make back your 100 quickly.
Jack is obviously distorting Kerry's involvement for less than honorable purposes. I saw a video of Kerry explaining his reasons for voting and he was clearly begrudgingly doing it only on the grounds of dangerous WMD's presenting a clear and present danger. If you presented an accurate showing of what evidence Bush had before the invasion it included an Israeli report specifically saying Saddam's army was broken and was no threat, nor did he possess any WMD's. I read this report in the Times less than a year before the invasion. It was buried afterwards and hasn't been seen since. National Security Agency reports doubting the existence of WMD's were buried and lost in the White House while Powell was war drumming in front of the cameras. Powell himself said there were no WMD's a year or so earlier. Later Bush fumbled for an excuse, doing a switcho chango to "well, he had the potential to develop WMD's" (please, isn't this the US? so much for US integrity)
Kerry stood no chance of being elected if he went against the US war machine. Only in this current US political climate would people have the hubris to make you explain yourself after having been right all along as if you had done something wrong and owed an explanation. Or why a decorated Vietnam vet would have to explain himself to a Champagne Squadron absentee...
An excellent post. But until some evidence develops my advice is to drop the suspicion that the Maryland arson was environmentally inspired.
Weary
Rocks 'n Roots
01-07-2005, 16:42
The Times did an excellent follow-through today on the Hunters Brooke arson case. This act wasn't done by previous environmemental underground groups. It was done by locals who were channeling their domestic frustration.
The group of locals were frustrated blue-collar types seeking an outlet for their frustrations. The Times described the late-night diner hanging-out, dropping out of school, and car racing habits of the group in question. A professional demographic research group had determined that the county in which the event happened was not developing adequate jobs to meet the increasing housing prices or land values. The act was sort of a class division decline protest coupled with local frustrations (including loss of land). Obviously, the subdivision's characterization as environmentally questionable was also involved and probably contributed to their justification of the act.
We probably have some good old boys here who were angry that urban blacks were buying half million dollar houses that were cutting into their countryside and diminishing their quality of life at their expense with no benefit besides dead end jobs. Investigators said searches of the suspects houses turned up no racism evidence or membership in racist groups. My guess is they thought copy-catting recent eco-terrorist actions would partly justify their protests...
Tha Wookie
01-07-2005, 16:47
My guess is they thought copy-catting recent eco-terrorist actions would partly justify their protests...
What recent actions would those be? Vandalizing hummers in LA? do tell.
Jack Tarlin
01-07-2005, 17:07
Geez, now if you disagree with what someone has written here at Whiteblaze, then you are writing for "less than honorable purposes."
Note to Weary and Rocks: Name-calling is relatively simple, the average nine-year old is quite proficient at it it. But it seldom adds to the dialogue. However, I guess it's useful if you don't feel like actually responding to the truthful comments I made regarding Mr. Kerry's positions, votes, and behavior. Brilliant debating technique! You can't show where I'm wrong, but for having the temerity to disagree with you, I'm "dishonorable."
Well, that's alright. I've been called worse, and by better men, too. But as for the name-calling, keep in mind that it would be relatively easy for me to sink to that level. But I won't. I might harbor the personal sentiment that one of you is a well meaning but boring old duffer with too much time on his hands, and the other is merely a horse's ass with pretensions of intellectualism, but goodness knows I would never actually accuse you of such things on an Internet forum.
For as we all know, to actually come out and say such rude and uncharitable things would be less than honorable.
By the way, guys, I just finished today's paper.
Your candidate still lost.
TJ aka Teej
01-07-2005, 17:41
...as for the name-calling, keep in mind that it would be relatively easy for me to sink to that level. But I won't. >snip< ...one of you is a well meaning but boring old duffer with too much time on his hands, and the other is merely a horse's ass with pretensions of intellectualism,
That's quite a flip-flop there, Jack! :D
The Times did an excellent follow-through today on the Hunters Brooke arson case. This act wasn't done by previous environmemental underground groups. It was done by locals who were channeling their domestic frustration.
The group of locals were frustrated blue-collar types seeking an outlet for their frustrations. The Times described the late-night diner hanging-out, dropping out of school, and car racing habits of the group in question. A professional demographic research group had determined that the county in which the event happened was not developing adequate jobs to meet the increasing housing prices or land values. The act was sort of a class division decline protest coupled with local frustrations (including loss of land). Obviously, the subdivision's characterization as environmentally questionable was also involved and probably contributed to their justification of the act.
We probably have some good old boys here who were angry that urban blacks were buying half million dollar houses that were cutting into their countryside and diminishing their quality of life at their expense with no benefit besides dead end jobs. Investigators said searches of the suspects houses turned up no racism evidence or membership in racist groups. My guess is they thought copy-catting recent eco-terrorist actions would partly justify their protests...
You were doing good RnR until your last paragraph. The Times said investigators searched for a racist reason, but could find no evidence.
Essentially, judging by the evidence so far, what happened was what I speculated a hundred or so posts ago: "However, there apparently is a sense of the inevitable in minimum wage circles, that nothing that happens is likely to be much worse than the present."
It's a culture of living in the present. I suspect these guys had never heard of ecoterrorism. They were just getting kicks out of planning a massive vandalism.
I'm afraid we'll see more of the same as this country pursues the twin policy of exporting manufacturing jobs, and of keeping low income jobs as low as possible through the import of third world workers.
The claim, reported daily in the papers and on television, that workers need to be imported because of the many jobs in this country "that Americans won't do," is simply nonsense. People can be found to do any jobs if the pay is high enough.
And the pay would quickly become high enough if we didn't have a policy of importing people willing to work for less than a living wage.
I watched the trend for years in the Maine woods industry. Woods contractors complained for years that they weren't earning enough to break even. Gradually most went out of business. Now the industry complains that it can no longer find the contractors needed to get the wood to their mills.
Don't be mislead by the term contractor. The industry for decades operated under a piece work system. Each worker, each small woods crew were considered independent contractors, thus alleviating the industry from any responsibility for minimum wages, workers compensation, or other benefits.
Weary
Rocks 'n Roots
01-08-2005, 01:41
Maybe a rebel last stand of men who were drawing the line between what they would accept and what they were being forced to accept. It's all the same. Sort of like a macro outsourcing of total surroundings and lifestyle that was the last straw. Their humble stamping grounds being destroyed by houses they would never be able to afford. All part of a process they were powerless in but squarely victims of...
My guess is they probably knew a lot more about eco-revolution than you realize...
Tha Wookie
01-08-2005, 01:56
Geez, now if you disagree with what someone has written here at Whiteblaze, then you are writing for "less than honorable purposes."
Note to Weary and Rocks: Name-calling is relatively simple, the average nine-year old is quite proficient at it it. But it seldom adds to the dialogue. However, I guess it's useful if you don't feel like actually responding to the truthful comments I made regarding Mr. Kerry's positions, votes, and behavior. Brilliant debating technique! You can't show where I'm wrong, but for having the temerity to disagree with you, I'm "dishonorable."
Well, that's alright. I've been called worse, and by better men, too. But as for the name-calling, keep in mind that it would be relatively easy for me to sink to that level. But I won't. I might harbor the personal sentiment that one of you is a well meaning but boring old duffer with too much time on his hands, and the other is merely a horse's ass with pretensions of intellectualism, but goodness knows I would never actually accuse you of such things on an Internet forum.
For as we all know, to actually come out and say such rude and uncharitable things would be less than honorable.
By the way, guys, I just finished today's paper.
Your candidate still lost.
How ironic, Jack. Who's the nine-year-old?:-?
orangebug
01-08-2005, 08:05
... My guess is they probably knew a lot more about eco-revolution than you realize...We, my bad. You were only guessing! I thought you we channeling.
BTW, how do you feel about living on a barrier island? Mother Nature attempted to remove your community. Why encourage persistant sprawl by rebuilding on a fragile island?
Note to Weary .... : Name-calling is relatively simple, the average nine-year old is quite proficient at it it. But it seldom adds to the dialogue. However, I guess it's useful if you don't feel like actually responding to the truthful comments I made regarding Mr. Kerry's positions, votes, and behavior. .... I might harbor the personal sentiment that one of you is a well meaning but boring old duffer with too much time on his hands, and the other is merely a horse's ass with pretensions of intellectualism, but goodness knows I would never actually accuse you of such things on an Internet forum.
....
Ah. Jack. I don't recall calling anyone names. I am quite sure that some, probably most, find my comments boring. They are just things I think that need to be said, and almost always in response to a comment by others that struck me as wrong. I could, of course, use invective, but I prefer to use facts and reason.
No. I'm not going to rehash the election, though from time to time, I do offer an occasional fact in response to comments that strike me as a bit nonsensical.
As for too much time, I have too little. My occasional comment in these forums are mostly frivolous interludes between more serious writing and comments. My more serious efforts have helped raise $200,000 since last summer for the two land trusts I helped found -- one to acquire special wild places in my home town, and the second to provide buffers for the narrow corridor that forms the Appalachian Trail through Maine.
So far my town friends and neighbors appear more dedicated to their local "wildlands," than the trail community is to the far away Maine trail. People think of Maine as the most remote and wildest section of the entire trail. It is that. But it is also the most threatened section.
But I remain confident that we will repay the mortgage that the Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust has assumed to purchase 1,200 acres adjacent to the trail corridor on Saddleback and an equal amount on the summit ridge of Abraham, one of the small cluster of 4,000-foot mountains through which the trail passes in this state.
For those who may wish to help, our web site is
www.matlt.org
Weary, who leaves in three minutes for seven hour meeting of the executive committee of the Maine Appalachian Trail Club, the group that maintains the 273 Maine miles of the AT.