Evironmental Terrorism In Maryland [Archive]

Tim Rich

12-07-2004, 21:26

A new subdivision in Maryland was badly damaged by arson recently. The Hunters Brooke subdivision was fought by environmentalists and the Sierra Club because it removed a forest protecting one of Maryland's biggest magnolia bogs. The Sierra Club had fought the development because it left no buffer between the bog and harmful human influences.

40 houses were firebombed before dawn the other night completely destroying 4 and damaging many others. The Sierra Club issued a statement condemning the act and approving of the capture and prosecution of those responsible. It said having the public think there's a radical terrorist behind every one of its battles doesn't help its cause...

Hunters Brooke is located 20 miles southeast of the District of Columbia in an area of fast-spreading sprawl. The project was owned by a 7 billion dollar Miami development company...

When I read this story today (including the part about the family that was awakened by the smell of the smoke and walls of flames in the first two directions they turned), I thought "who would be the most likely to toss this out for a little pep rally against the mean old developers?"

My initial guess was correct, it seems.

Roxy, you sit on your can in sunny Florida while the dreams of hard working families are trashed, while true public servants risk their lives because decadent, single-focused idiots decide that nothing else matters but their sweet bogs. If you were an individual who actually did something other than type out missives while half-lit, would you advocate similar action to save the only thing that matters in your mind?

I'm just a bit curious, Mr. Roots. Do you do anything? Really, anything at all? Outside pursuits? Gainful employment? Contribute to our capitalist system? Live off the public teat? Dayhikes to the bank on the 3rd of the month? What?

Frosty

12-07-2004, 22:40

When I read this story today (including the part about the family that was awakened by the smell of the smoke and walls of flames in the first two directions they turned),People WERE IN THE HOUSES? I had assumed from the original post that they were in various stages of construction.

This isn't arson, this is attempted murder.

bobgessner57

12-07-2004, 22:44

For those who applaud the arsonists: Have you refused to buy hiking gear made of synthetic materials? How much toxic spew are we accountable for with all of our ultralight super wicking and silnylon synthetic non renewable, non rotting environmentally questionable gear? Even the stuff made from recycled material must involve some tradeoffs.

Yea, I hate to see McMansions built on sensitive lands but once the battle is lost the time for appropriate, measured, responsible protest is over. Arson, no way. It only sets people against the cause.

smokymtnsteve

12-07-2004, 22:51

Leon Uris...MILA 18...

U-BOLT

12-07-2004, 23:00

No...................
No? It's not a crime against nature to bulldoze what's left of the old growth forests? Did I read you right, Mr. RICH?

Mags

12-07-2004, 23:03

Leon Uris...MILA 18...
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt; you really aren't comparing the environmental fight to the WW2 holocaust, are you?

Israel

12-07-2004, 23:05

1) for the record, developers do not build houses (typically). Home builders build houses. Developers build streets and install sewer lines.
2) Keep in mind that property that goes up for development is typically on the open market. People who protest development usually have the option of placing the property under contract and buying it themselves. You cannot blame a private land owner for excersizing his right to sell his land. If you don't want to see development, put your money where your mouth is and buy it yourself. The best way to preserve land is to buy it and do nothing with it.
3) Urban sprawl. I am 100% against urban sprawl. Reality is though that developers and builders provide a service that is demanded by the people/market. Trust me, developers and builders would not do what they do if they could not sell their product. Supply and demand dictate that developers develop and builders build. Please keep in mind that you would not, unless you are the rare case that built your own home and installed your own street, you would not be sitting in a house with electricity and be warm and dry if it were not for a developer and a builder. What if your home was firebombed by people that thought the tearing down of the land you now live on was the best thing to do since the forest was torn down to build your home? The hypocracy of the eco-terrorism people and their supporters is ridiculous. Think it through people...who the heck built your house and who the heck built your street?
4) If you truly are against urban sprawl, and I suspect everyone is and I think we all should be to some degree, I encourage you to get off your rear end and get involved in your local land planning. Most places have zoning departments that oversee land use. I encourage you to look into better land use concepts.
I am 100% for high, high density. Creating large lot zoning, by it's absolute design, magnifies and increases urban sprawl. Doing the opposite, creating areas of high density and combining it with green space does a much better job of accomplishing what you are talking about. Unfortunately, people somehow think that density is the culprit and that larger lots is the way to discourage building and nothing could be further from the truth. I am a strong believer in creating zones of high density, say 12-14 units per acre, in the approrpiate areas. The catch 22 is that we live in a free country and the reality is that land owners will all, or at least most, will cash in on the financial investment they have made. Developers pay the big bucks that these land owners want. Unless states or conservation organizations come up with a way to get the landowners the money they want it will go to the highest bidder. Creating development easements whereby the development rights are assigned to a trust is about the only way you are going to stop the development. Most land owners that place their large tracts into a conservation designation for taxation purposes do it as a cheap way to hold a long term investment for it's invetible sale to the highest price the open market will allow.
As well, creating and mandating large lot zoning actually makes the gift and dream of homeownership beyond the realm of affordability of most people. You would then create a situation where most people could no longer afford to purchase affordable housing, which leads to many unpleasant results as there is no better way to create a healthy and safe community than to have a high percentage of homeownership. How are you going to assure that you have affordable housing if you enact legislation that requires 5 acre minimums? That $150,000 house just became a $400,000 or more. What do you do with people that own land that is less than 5 acres in size? What if someone just bought a 3 acre tract? What if you own a 1/2 acre tract? I say go the opposite direction and the results will be more what you actually seek (i.e. greenspace)...high density all the way!! Even if you do the typical subdivision and not a new ubanism development (http://www.cnu.org/about/index.cfm), at least create conservation subdivision ordinances whereby you can build the same # of units allowed by a typical zoning designation but then clump them together on smaller lots and leave the bulk of the property untouched. Everyone wins...the developer has less dirt to move and pipe to lay so it is cheaper, and the area retains open/wild lands from then on as it is in a platted subdivision and deeded to the HOA and covenants restict it's sale.
I am a big believer in new urbanistic development and I encourage everyone here to look into it...make the density high, the lots small, the homes tasteful, and create even more land in the public realm for all to enjoy. Density is not the enemy the public often perceives it to be, if density is developed properly.
We as a culture need to find, for many different reasons on many different levels, a different way to live than the cul-de-sac subdivision environment we have created and bought into. It is an unnatural way to live. A new urbanism approach to development actually gets us going back to a more natural way to live, a healthier way to live.

Ok, off my soap box now. Sorry to be so long winded- I spend a lot of time in my work dealing with these types of issues and welcome anyones comments on any of the above.

U-BOLT

12-07-2004, 23:12

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt; you really aren't comparing the environmental fight to the WW2 holocaust, are you?
In today's environment where humans are on the verge of paving and polluting ourselves off the face of the planet, that's a pretty good comparison. The deaths we will sustain over the next 100 years will make the Nazi holocost look like small potatos.

Rocks 'n Roots

12-07-2004, 23:19

smokymtnsteve

12-07-2004, 23:29

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt; you really aren't comparing the environmental fight to the WW2 holocaust, are you?

Life death Opressors opressed...the question mr uris ask is WHEN does a people begin to fight? No this burning of houses is not a good thing ,,,but nethier is affluenza destruction of our planet...this crap that is being built (like gwinnett county ga) is some horrible, stuff,,,not fit for human habitation,,,thereby rendering ever larger areas of my home planet earth unfit for human habitation....

this so called eco-terrorism is not terror at all...but a defensive strike against an aggressor. the terrorism to EARTH was commited by the developer.

I Fear that we will be seeing more of this type of behaviors as populations continue to grow and areas fit for human habitation begin to shrink. if the human race is to survive,,,many changes will have to be made in the way people view production and resource management...americans leave the largest eviornmental footprints...we must reduce our trampling of the planet.

Israel

12-07-2004, 23:57

this so called eco-terrorism is not terror at all...but a defensive strike against an aggressor. the terrorism to EARTH was commited by the developer.

Steve, as I mentioned above, I assume you either don't live in a house on a paved street or you are eminently preparing to move from said house and into an animal skin teepee that you hunted, killed, and built yourself, right? Reality is that a developer and/or builder, only does what "we" really want them to do. Maybe this particular builder and developer did not do what you wanted to do, but some developer, some builder somewhere did what you wanted to do b/c at one time or another you either bought their house or rented their house from someone who bought their house. They only build what "we" want so fighting them is really an outward struggle of the desire that is within us.

If anyone here cares about land use, get directly and intimately involved with local land use decisions and/or start actively working towards purchasing the land you see is environmentally sensative in your area. It is a lazy man that watches land go on the market, watches it get rezoned for development, watches it be bought and sold, watch it be developed, do nothing about the above, and then complain that they don't like the way their world looks. Get involved.

I am going to start a movement against the manufacturing of syntheticly made outdoor equipment- who is with me on this??? All the plastics are set up by DOW and we ALL know how bad they are! Let's take them down. I move that we all stop living in our houses, stop driving our cars, and stop buying backpacks. Funny, the entire pastime and "sport" of long distance hiking is completely and utterly dependant upon the manufacturing industries that we some often complain against. Yet without them, we do not have our lightweight shoes, our ramen noodles or mac and cheese, our tents, our backpacks, etc. etc.
The more you look at revolving your life around these issues the more you see how hopelessly hypocritical the entire situation is. The solution required is much, much bigger than ourselves.

smokymtnsteve

12-08-2004, 00:19

Steve, as I mentioned above, I assume you either don't live in a house on a paved street or you are eminently preparing to move from said house and into an animal skin teepee that you hunted, killed, and built yourself, right? .

no but I am eminently preparing to move to an off-grid handhewn cabin in AK this weekend. I'll be moving this saturday.

rode the marta train to work today as usual...for an american my footprint is smaller than average...and I continue to learn to walk more gently on the planet everyday...

No developers/builders are building nothing I want...damn Mcdonalds/church on every corner with a parking lot full of SUVs, Tvs, boom boxes, advertisment bombarding U everywhere...NO thanks.

why isn't it beautiful gwinnett county ga that requires two car garage...didn't that affect habitats ability to operate in gwinnett..

screwysquirrel

12-08-2004, 00:20

You Aholes who applaud this and think it's cool to torch houses wouldn't have the balls to do it yourselves. You're punks.
You've got this right! :clap

grandview

12-08-2004, 00:40

In today's environment where humans are on the verge of paving and polluting ourselves off the face of the planet, that's a pretty good comparison. The deaths we will sustain over the next 100 years will make the Nazi holocost look like small potatos.
what part of wv are you from? coal belt...chemical valley...or the other 80 percent of the wild wonderful?

also, i think it's ridiculous to compare nazis to "hard top roads" as i remember the old timers calling them in wv during my youth.

saimyoji

12-08-2004, 00:51

Firebombing a housing complex compared to the Nazi endorsed holocaust? Just what ethnic group are we targeting by firebombing these housing complexes? The developers and builders that live miles away? Get a grip.

Groucho

12-08-2004, 01:13

The deaths we will sustain over the next 100 years will make the Nazi holocost look like small potatos.

Yep, well over 5 billion people will die in the next 100 years. No small potatoEs.

UCONNMike

12-08-2004, 01:13

When i first read this i thougth it was a joke, but it wasn't, and thats flippin' crazy that they did that, like that's some crazy rambo / commando stuff. While it would be cool in a movie, in real life that's kinda messed up. I mean i know government sucks now, and trying to get help from them is kind of a lost cause, but there has to be a better way of saving these areas, plus what will stop the guy from just rebuilding, he's loaded.

Upgrade = saving the forests and wetlands.
Downgrade = blowing stuff up to accomplish it.

Mountain Dew

12-08-2004, 02:12

My only wish when hearing this story of enviromental terrorism was that one of the fire bombers would have either been burned alive or that a home owner would have shot and killed them. Protection of our property is well within the law as was the building of those houses. This old growth forest topic is rather transparent. People who do little to contribute to the American economy live their lives in a reactive way instead of a proactive manner. Instead of comments crimes they should be joining organizations that buy this land in order to save it. I'd be willing to bet that none of the people responisble for this act of terrorism have ever done anything like write their congressman, run for city council, or donate money to a group that buys such land for the protection of it. These people need to be shot when found destroying peoples lives and property instead of setting a potential forest fire in order to "protect" old growth forest.

Mags, Tim Rich, Uconn, Lone Wolf, etc. Great posts. You get capitalism and understand that these people are eco-terrorist.

Tha Wookie

12-08-2004, 02:46

terrorism.

How easily this word gets tossed around these days. How painful it is.

Mt. Dew called for murder to pay back some houses being destroyed. Do you people realize what Mt. Dew said? Read his post a couple times. Ever heard of Salem, VA? You probably did because of statements like his.

Others here say that since we use nylon, we're hypocrites if we're against massive destruction of endangered habitats.

Others obviously haven't read enough Edward Abbey.

I'm with the Sierra Club on this one, but those people aren't "terrorists". They are misguided people fighting a good fight but the wrong way. I mean, all they needed was some carob sugar....

Mountain Dew

12-08-2004, 03:36

Wookie.... You need a lesson in the difference between the word murder and kill. I used the word "killed". Get it straight next time would you.

I now understand that you don't know the first thing about our right to protect our property and the lifes of our family's. How does the saying go..." ignorance of the law is no excuse". I have a B.S. in criminal law, but is that really needed to know that we have the right to defend our life and property ? Oh how the founding fathers would be angered to know that people give up such rights so freely as you do Wookie. It is legal to protect our homes and the lifes of our family's in EVERY STATE Wookie. If caught attempting to firebomb a house the owner of that house has the right to use deadly force. It's the law. I didn't just make it up for the purpose of my last post. I wont even go into the other laws that would have made it possible for anybody to use deadly force against these people upon catching them in the act. What would you have done if you caught these felons attempting to fire bomb the very house you and your family slept in ? Ran like a coward and later called them "misguided" as you did in your post ?

Bottom line here is this. You direct your words harder at me then at the coward, scum, felons who almost killed an innocent family. Nice character you have.

Just out of curiosity..what would you do if you caught these scum burning your house while your family slept Sgt. Rock, Lone Wolf, Baltimore Jack, Old Fhart, Walkinhome, Blue Jay, etc, ?

Tha Wookie

12-08-2004, 04:06

Burn the Eco-Terrorist My only wish when hearing this story of enviromental terrorism was that one of the fire bombers would have either been burned alive or that a home owner would have shot and killed them.
...Nice character you have.
Did you learn that kind of talk at Dallas Baptist University, where you studied "criminal law" as an undergrad?

Please, why don't you give us a lecture in character?

Killing? Getting "even" with guns? Slandering a fellow's girlfriend on the internet? What other tidbits of wisdom can you share with us?

Bloodroot

12-08-2004, 04:51

Probably would hog tie the person up and burn them a little. That's just my character.

What would you do? Let em run away, then casually call the police?

grandview

12-08-2004, 05:06

Probably would hog tie the person up and burn them a little. That's just my character.

What would you do? Let em run away, then casually call the police?
In the event that an eco terrorist tried to burn down my house, I'd give them a round a piece and then call the police.

Bloodroot

12-08-2004, 05:15

In the event that an eco terrorist tried to burn down my house, I'd give them a round a piece and then call the police.
That's just two people's character you know Grandview? Maybe it's the old West "by God" thing of running out on the porch and shooting our 10 gauge double barrel. That's just the way we roll in the hills. Hatfields and McCoys rule!

grandview

12-08-2004, 06:35

That's just two people's character you know Grandview? Maybe it's the old West "by God" thing of running out on the porch and shooting our 10 gauge double barrel. That's just the way we roll in the hills. Hatfields and McCoys rule!
off topic but...
i actually went to high school with some hatfields...
and yes, to this day, i keep a colt 44 by the front door....and a double barrel 20 gauge under my side of the bed....i guess you can never get all of that hillbilly out of your system.

regarding the topic:
I certainly wouldn't celebrate the shooting of a firebomber but they certainly placed themselves in a situation where they became fair game. If indeed there was a family living in one of those houses, then it went from arson to attempted murder.

What good does burning down a hummer dealership or a housing development serve anyway? The fires they light could easily end up burning down significant portions of old mother earth...I assumed these types of folks were against smoke pollution. Exceptions can be made apparently.

Tim Rich

12-08-2004, 08:07

...my home planet earth...

Doggone it, I lost a bet on that one...

Tim Rich

12-08-2004, 08:09

In the event that an eco terrorist tried to burn down my house, I'd give them a round a piece and then call the police.

Unfortunately, many misguided folks here would buy them a round and demean the police.

NICKTHEGREEK

12-08-2004, 08:11

At this point ecoterrorism is one of MANY possible motives for the arson. Just about every agency possible, FBI, ATF, State State and local agencies are camped out on site looking for clues. There have been several recent arsons in new housing developments in the MD DC VA region, so this isn't really an isolated case. BTW the tract of land is approximately 10 acres with approx. 40 approved sites homes range upward from $400K (considered affordable mid-range in this locale).

Tim Rich

12-08-2004, 08:23

There was only one family in the incompleted project. Most of the houses were under construction.

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...

Only one family, no big deal, right Roxy? I'll say it: if it were the racetrack it would be ENTIRELY WRONG. If Putnam Mine had opened and idiots monkeywrenched it, it would be ENTIRELY WRONG. If someone took a torch and cut down a cell tower or windmill, it would be ENTIRELY WRONG. If someone believed a shelter infringed upon their wilderness AT experience and torched it, it's ENTIRELY WRONG. If a float trip seeking a wilderness experience encounters a cable bridge that destroys their sense of detachment, popping the main cables to drop it would be ENTIRELY WRONG.

I do agee that YOU would find it difficult to say that.

So, what's going on down in pristine, undeveloped Ft. Myers today?

Tim Rich

12-08-2004, 08:27

orangebug

12-08-2004, 08:27

Someone commented earlier on the character of those who cheer the criminal behavior of these arsonists. I believe the word was "punk."

This also applies to those who espouse vigilante justice.

Same punks, same cowardice, same ignorance.

Lone Wolf

12-08-2004, 08:32

So you applaud arson? I applaud kickin the s**t outa the punks.

orangebug

12-08-2004, 08:38

Bloodroot

12-08-2004, 08:45

This also applies to those who espouse vigilante justice.
Same punks, same cowardice, same ignorance.
Till it happens to you, right? This goes right along with if someone were to break and enter your home. So you just gonna sit back and say, "Ok bud go ahead take what you want, but when you leave I'm gonna call the cops." I vote Lone Wolf style.

Blue Jay

12-08-2004, 08:54

Just out of curiosity..what would you do if you caught these scum burning your house while your family slept Sgt. Rock, Lone Wolf, Baltimore Jack, Old Fhart, Walkinhome, Blue Jay, etc, ?

I have not posted on this thread or topic, so leave me out of it. You can't even write a proper sentence. It sounds clearly like you are calling this list of people scum. I know your not, but anyone who did not know you are illiterate would think that you did. Who ever gave you a BA needs to be fired.

orangebug

12-08-2004, 09:00

Till it happens to you, right? This goes right along with if someone were to break and enter your home. So you just gonna sit back and say, "Ok bud go ahead take what you want, but when you leave I'm gonna call the cops." I vote Lone Wolf style.
No, I would sit back, be polite and not make threats. I hope I'd have the moxie to offer to write the idiot a check. :rolleyes: And yep, I'd call the police after he left. And I'd be pissed off.

The safety of my family and myself trumps the accumulation of stuff.

Lone Wolf

12-08-2004, 09:04

Oh brother. :rolleyes:

Bloodroot

12-08-2004, 09:11

No, I would sit back, be polite and not make threats. I hope I'd have the moxie to offer to write the idiot a check. :rolleyes: And yep, I'd call the police after he left. And I'd be pissed off.

The safety of my family and myself trumps the accumulation of stuff.
Sure, I agree, family safety is priority number one. But I'll be damned if I'm gonna sit back and make the intruders a cup of coffee. I also agree, I would call the police (just around the same time I am pulling out the intruders finger nails with vice grips).:D

Bloodroot

12-08-2004, 09:12

I guess it all falls back to passive and submissive personalities.

Israel

12-08-2004, 09:59

terrorism.

How easily this word gets tossed around these days. How painful it is.

I'm with the Sierra Club on this one, but those people aren't "terrorists". They are misguided people fighting a good fight but the wrong way. I mean, all they needed was some carob sugar....

Wookie,
I guess the same could be said by those that are/were sympathetic with the arab pilots of the plans on 9/11...they were fighting their good fight, just a little misguided.
The firebombers are certainly on a different scale, they are more like amatures, but their acts, their intentions, their methods, are really the same.

It was said perfectly by someone above that stated the problem with people that do this is they typically, and I know I am somewhat stereotyping, contribute very little to their community. They are soley reactive and that is no way to live. They need to be proactive.

If the homes are selling for around $450,000 each and their are 40 on 10 acres that would put the raw land sales price somewhere in the ballpark of $260,000 per acre, or $2.6 million for the 10 acres. Why didn't the sierra club buy it?

We will never end development and you will never end new home construction. The answer is to make sure development is done in the right way. Get involved with land planning in your local community and encourage your community to develop using the new urbanism concepts. It works.

Israel

12-08-2004, 10:08

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/07/homes.destroyed/index.html

Who knows, maybe it was just some stupid teenagers? Either way, seems stupid if it was done to stop building...the streets are already in place.

SGT Rock

12-08-2004, 10:22

Goon

12-08-2004, 10:30

What would I do if someone came to my house in the middle of the night? Unfortunately, I can answer that because I had a home invasion.

I own 15 acres here in Dawson County, GA with a house right in the middle. Very private, great views, lots of critters in the woods.

About 6 months after moving in I awoke around 5am... I don't remember hearing anything, but I just bolted straight up out of bed. Then I heard someone running down the hall upstairs next to my bedroom. (I'm not married, no kids, so noone else should've been there.)

Fortunately they ran out of the house rather than be confrontational so I didn't have to use that .357 I had in my hand.

I never actually saw the guy or guys. The police never caught them that I know of. They broke into the house through the garage so they knew I was home... the car was right there. They didn't care. Scary. It could've turned out very differently.

Next day I finally got around to having that alarm put in.

Toolshed

12-08-2004, 10:34

Hear Hear. I'm with Sgt Rock and L Wolf on this one.
These are terrorists. It could have been murder of a family.
Those who stand by this as a rational act against development need to take a closer look at themselves in their mirror and wonder at the empty shell that is staring back at them.

weary

12-08-2004, 10:51

I don't applaud punks. Vigilantes who believe the ends justifies the means (homicide or arson in this case) deserve consequences, including the criminal justice system when appropriate. Loud mouthed punks deserve the back of my cyber-hand. We have a few on both sides of this crime.
I agree that it's terrible when people violate the established laws of the land. Sadly, it's a tradition that goes back to the earliest days of this nation. Remember that guy who snuck across a river at Christmas time and shot up the representatives of what was then the only established government. We later even elected the leader to public office and continue to applaud his sneak attack. I'm afraid we will always have to deal with these vigilantes, at least until we can learn to recognize and condemn our long history of lawless acts.

We need to reform more than ourselves. The world also needs a new respect for law and order. Historians seem agreed, for instance, the bloody world war I was started when Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia on the unproven belief that Serbia had fostered an act of terrorism.

There are later examples of such punk actions, but this is a hiking forum and you'll have to do further research yourselves.

Weary

smokymtnsteve

12-08-2004, 10:53

maybe those who live in mcmansion land should take a look back at thier footprints..as Abbey would say..tramp..tramp..tramp...

these types of incidents are happening with increasing regularity,,we have had some serial "arson" here around atlanta...with an increasing divide between classses here in the USA and around the world we will continue to see more incidents such as this,

it's all really awful...but I have to admit that I smile everytime I hear of a hummer dealership suffering.

PLEASE STAND FOR THE GOSPEL OF ABBEY!

"Remaining silent about the destruction of nature is an endorsement of that destruction."

THANKS BE TO ABBEY!

smokymtnsteve

12-08-2004, 10:57

. The world also needs a new respect for law and order.
Weary

PLEASE STAND FOR TEH GOSPEL OF ABBEY!

"Government: If you refuse to pay unjust taxes, your property will be confiscated. If you attempt to defend your property, you will be arrested. If you resist arrest, you will be clubbed. If you defend yourself against clubbing, you will be shot dead. These procedures are known as the Rule of Law."

THANKS BE TO ABBEY!

orangebug

12-08-2004, 11:11

I guess it all falls back to passive and submissive personalities.
I guess it falls back on those who fantasize they are Rambo, and those who live another day.

Bloodroot

12-08-2004, 11:22

I guess it falls back on those who fantasize they are Rambo, and those who live another day.
No it's those who stand up for themselves and those who sit back in the corner sucking their thumbs in the fetal position.

Lone Wolf

12-08-2004, 11:26

Some men are men. Other men are liberal pussies.

weary

12-08-2004, 11:32

Some men are men. Other men are liberal pussies.
Or as America's great new steroids induced leader -- the guy for which some are trying to change the constitution so he can become president -- puts it, "girly men."

Weary

steve hiker

12-08-2004, 11:59

I also laughed and gave a "two-thumbs up" to the guys who pulled this off. The only thing I didn't like is that a family was living in the subdivision -- a big no-no. Even Edward Abbey would never endanger human life in defense of the environment. But it's my guess that whoever did it thought the subdivision was still entirely vacant. No excuse for them, but I really doubt they were aware one of the houses was occupied.

Vigilante acts like this are not the ultimate answer of course. The environment will never be safe until respect for the Earth is the Law and is enforced out of respect not fear. (As Alan Greenspan has said, "underneath every stack of regulations is a gun.") But the "system" has not worked very well overall except for those who wish to pave over the entire planet. Sometimes it takes a spark from a different corner, an unconventional and even in itself an condemnable act, to spur a change in direction. Perhaps this act is a beginning sign that we as a society have had enough of developer mentality, and will not take the wholesale rape of the land anymore.

Toolshed

12-08-2004, 12:06

I also laughed and gave a "two-thumbs up" to the guys who pulled this off.

I agree that it is funny especially when one can compare it to these eco-weenies who are doing nothingmore than shooting themselves in the foot.

The developers will now have to purchase more lumber, which will require harvesting more trees. (and if this isn't that much lumber or construction to make a dent, then why take aim in the first place.

Oh, and by the way, this hasn't endeared any of you eco-weenies with the public - Nobody thinks you're as cute as Green Day was a decade ago.

smokymtnsteve

12-08-2004, 12:21

guess the eco-wennies aren't very fond of "the public" eithier.

who wants to be cute???...

it has only just begun...the waterfall is rapidly approaching...

smokymtnsteve

12-08-2004, 12:24

. Even Edward Abbey would never endanger human life in defense of the environment. You cannot reshape human nature without mutilating human beings.
~
.

R U sure about that steve hiker?

PLEASE STAND FOR THE GOSPEL OF ABBEY!

"You cannot reshape human nature without mutilating human beings."
~
THANKS BE TO ABBEY!

Mags

12-08-2004, 13:08

orangebug

12-08-2004, 13:15

Hear! Hear!

Mags, you are so correct. The idea of comparing the Holocaust victims or Washington's attack on mercenaries to vigilante arson strikes me products of unsound minds.

smokymtnsteve

12-08-2004, 13:22

PLEASE STAND FOR THE GOSPEL OF ABBEY!

"The death penalty would be even more effective, as a deterrent, if we executed a few innocent people more often."

THANKS BE TO ABBEY!

The Old Fhart

12-08-2004, 14:07

Some of you state that anyone who disagrees with anyone else’s land or building use has the right to torch, destroy it, or resort to any criminal action they see fit. How about the Don Nelan A.T. shelter in Sugar Hollow that was burned and the fishhooks across the A.T. in 1990, for instance-was that o.k. also? How about ATVs ripping up the A.T.? Don’t like a synagogue, church, hospital, or school; destroy them as well. Don’t like your neighbor’s SUV-gone. Hell, just don’t like your neighbor-gone.

These vigilante criminal acts cannot be condoned or encouraged no matter how you feel about these so-called “misguided” people’s cause. As the saying goes: “extremism in the defense of virtue is a vice.” The people doing this destruction are cowards and criminal scum.

And, Mountain Dew, your asking:
Just out of curiosity..what would you do if you caught these scum burning your house while your family slept Sgt. Rock, Lone Wolf, Baltimore Jack, Old Fhart, Walkinhome, Blue Jay, etc, ? reminds me of one of Mr. T’s favorite expressions: “I pity the fool.” You wouldn’t by chance want to try it, would you? ;)

Tim Rich

12-08-2004, 14:12

Wookie,
I guess the same could be said by those that are/were sympathetic with the arab pilots of the plans on 9/11...they were fighting their good fight, just a little misguided.
The firebombers are certainly on a different scale, they are more like amatures, but their acts, their intentions, their methods, are really the same.

It was said perfectly by someone above that stated the problem with people that do this is they typically, and I know I am somewhat stereotyping, contribute very little to their community. They are soley reactive and that is no way to live. They need to be proactive.

If the homes are selling for around $450,000 each and their are 40 on 10 acres that would put the raw land sales price somewhere in the ballpark of $260,000 per acre, or $2.6 million for the 10 acres. Why didn't the sierra club buy it?

We will never end development and you will never end new home construction. The answer is to make sure development is done in the right way. Get involved with land planning in your local community and encourage your community to develop using the new urbanism concepts. It works.

This ten acres is one component of an overall development of over 200 acres. The adjacent bog is about 50 acres, so it would have been a much larger land purchase.

smokymtnsteve

12-08-2004, 14:18

The people doing this destruction are cowards and criminal scum.

I would say that the people destructing the environment are the criminal scum. it should not be condoned.

PLEASE STAND FOR THE GOSPEL OF ABBEY!

"Recorded history is largely an account of the crimes and disasters committed by banal little men at the levers of imperial machines."

THANKS BE TO ABBEY!

Tim Rich

12-08-2004, 14:29

>>Others obviously haven't read enough Edward Abbey.

Like yourself, Wookie? :)

Abbey did not advocate fireboming the homes where families live.
If there is a text that say it is OK to kill innocent families in Abbey's text, I'd be surprised.
The target of the Monkeywrech gang was mainly construcion sites (and of course the Glen Canyon Dam).

Sorry. It is just plan wrong.

Also, it makes me sick that people can actually compare the uprising in the Warsaw ghetto to an act of vigilantes. As Hannukkah just start last night, I did that remark esp. terrible.

It doesn't matter in the slightest what Abbey said, where he said it, or if he had a belly full of beer when he muttered it.

Mags, you nailed it: it's plain wrong.

It's sad when I see folks trivializing tragic historic events by comparing them to relatively insignificant current events. I generally attribute it to a lack of historical knowledge. In Weary's case, his linking of a multihome arson to Washington's crossing of the Delaware required effort and a callous disregard of truth.

Mags

12-08-2004, 14:29

PLEASE STAND FOR THE GOSPEL OF ABBEY!

"The death penalty would be even more effective, as a deterrent, if we executed a few innocent people more often."

THANKS BE TO ABBEY!

Men love their ideas more than their lives. And the more preposterous the idea, the more eager they are to die for it. And to kill for it.
--Ed Abbey

So, we just proved we can quote Abbey to defend our viewpoints. What do we win?
:)

smokymtnsteve

12-08-2004, 14:53

minnesotasmith

12-08-2004, 14:55

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.

2) Short of making America into a destitute slavepit h*ll like North Korea, development and urban sprawl would IMO only be stoppable here by two completely non-PC major policy changes:

A) Reverse population growth in America to become general population decline. Since native-born citizens of European ancestry already are having children at below replacement rates, such a policy would as a practical matter mean discouraging minorities having children, militarizing the southern border, expelling as many of those who are or have been illegal or Third-World immigrants within the last generation (possibly along with their children) as can be found, favoring homosexuality over heterosexuality, etc. I know the liberals/eco-nuts mostly hold the last position, but rather doubt they would admit to favoring those other ones.

B) Relegalize overt widespread de jure racial/ethnic segregation in employment and (especially) housing. If neighborhoods no longer went Third World, those that would perceive that moving would restore the neighborhood they agreed to move into would lose that frequent motivation for moving, along with the development it spawns. Do remember this old aphorism (paraphrased from imperfect memory):

"A racially mixed neighborhood is a chronologically-defined, temporary phenomenon. It comes into existence when the first minority moves into a neighborhood, and lasts until the last white moves out."

Still in favor of turning back sprawl and development, eco-types?

3) Smoky's quote here is IMO one of the most eloquent pieces of wisdom on this thread: "Government: If you refuse to pay unjust taxes..." I agree with its POV completely, and am saddened at its truth about America today.

4) I would have shot the firebombers if they were coming after my house had I had the opportunity and means, and would subsequently have had a song in my heart about my act. Too, any of them that accidentally dropped one of their bombs in their laps would not be cause for any grief.

5) A forest, like a lawn or a field of wheat, belongs to the property owner. Ownership means control. Taking control without a voluntary purchase at market value is theft; take 10% control (i.e., by zoning/enviro regs), you've stolen 10% of its value. The owner of a forest has the right to cut it down, if he has no voluntarily-entered contractual obligation to refrain from doing so.

In any event, I believe I read somewhere that the photosynthetic activity of a field of tall grass exceeds that of most temperate forest types on an areal basis. If greenhouse gases were the top priority for those both well-informed and ecologically concerned, the eco-types would favor cutting down all those nasty land-wasting trees and putting in grass, including along the Appalachian Trail.

Willing to do what it takes to do something adequate about global warming/greenhouse gases, enviromentally-fixated fellow forumites?

Mags

12-08-2004, 15:05

then we agree mags, as the destruction of this sensitive enviorment is a preposterous idea...the mcmansion people love thier idea so much that they don't mind killing enviornments...and destroying ecosystems that we all are dependent upon for life. ;)

Er. No.

I'm done playing Talmudic Abbey scholar, Steve. Your flippant remark did not really answer the point my message above. Those who had a preposterous idea (arsonists) thought it was OK to kill.

The other point of my message is that we can both use the words of an author to backup our viewpoint. Since we both proved we can do this, what point is there to quoting Abbey? As I said, it is like discussing and debating the Talmud at this point. As I am not a reb of the Abbey Talmud I dont't see the point anymore.

Thankyou.

Dainon

12-08-2004, 15:12

B) Relegalize overt widespread de jure racial/ethnic segregation in employment and (especially) housing. If neighborhoods no longer went Third World, those that would perceive that moving would restore the neighborhood they agreed to move into would lose that frequent motivation for moving, along with the development it spawns. Do remember this old aphorism (paraphrased from imperfect memory):

"A racially mixed neighborhood is a chronologically-defined, temporary phenomenon. It comes into existence when the first minority moves into a neighborhood, and lasts until the last white moves out."

Still in favor of turning back sprawl and development, eco-types?

My wife and daughter will be interested to know that they turned our neighborbood into a "Third World." That was 10 years ago and I don't know of anyone who has moved out. Thankfully everyone welcomed us.

orangebug

12-08-2004, 15:17

Sometimes I wish there was a little emoticon for the jaw dropping, head shaking reaction to racist stupidity.

minnesotasmith

12-08-2004, 15:31

Anyone who thinks that whites don't generally move out when their neighborhoods become majority non-white is so completely ignorant of the country they live in, that you'd have to figure they took Womyn's Studies, Environmental Socialism, or the like at one of the inferior U.S. colleges like Harvard, Yale, Berkeley, UW-Madison, etc.

Note that I did not propose doing these things I mentioned. What I did was describe a major force that substantially motivates many Americans to take action that encourages urban sprawl and development, and what it would take (become NK or bring back segregation/controlled borders) to actually make a major change in those phenomena. I further predicted that the leftists on this board would prefer development to bringing back those policies (those honest enough to admit that that is the choice). Any board leftists willing to accept the price for voluntary control of sprawl in the U.S., or not? Just curious...

Tha Wookie

12-08-2004, 15:36

We will never end development and you will never end new home construction. The answer is to make sure development is done in the right way. Get involved with land planning in your local community and encourage your community to develop using the new urbanism concepts. It works.
Preaching to the choir, my friend.

I actually admire your suggestion, especially in this wacked thread filled with threats of violence between supposed hikers.

But I do disagree with one thing- we CAN stop development in certain areas. The Nature Conservancy does this every day -they are well funded, yet prioritize areas on ecological significance. So does the existance and continual fight of the ATC.

I can only spectulate why an environmental group didn't buy it. Have you ever tried to raise 11 million dollars?

Read this:

In Athens, GA, I lived in one of the last significant stands of old pine near the city, which is sadly gorging itself on the "green belt" that separates it from Atlanta. I lived in a log cabin built in the early 1900's. The owner of the land had a historically significant restaurant that had started as a b-b-q/lodging place in the the mid 1800's for hunters (charlie williams, owner). There was also a sacred Cherokee spring, where they would meet the Creeks in peaceful talks on the property (for thousands of years).

But the restaurant business, whose revenue was keeping the place protected, started to dwindle after a parcel a couple miles away was developed with a Kmart, Kroger, and gobs of fast-food chains. The owner, Charlie's nephew, made a deal with an environmental group that formed in town just to save the land from development if they could raise the money in 1 year. They only needed 2 million I think. They came up short, but close, after a year. The day after a year, the owner sold the land anyway to someone who promised not to develop the land. The very next day, he turned and sold it to a pathetic little man who drives a big diesel truck and completely leveled the forest to red clay, even next to the Oconee River, with mounds of burning forest. The river still runs red with any rain.

As I picked my guitar on the old planked porch, I could hear the machines and the felling. I watched deer, rabbits, squirrels, birds, foxes and everything else that wasn't rooted or already dead flee into the nearby sparcely forested suburbs. The red-tailed hawks, who flew in tight circles every day over the pond directly behind my cabin, where I cast my line almost daily until the fish started turning up their bellies in the reddening water, were about the only creatures left, harboring themselves in the absolutely massive pines and oaks surrounding the cabin.

I don't know if the hawks are still there, but I have been told that the cabin is. They say it stands naked, in a little island of trophy trees, in a wastland that resembles something only found in wars, volcanoes, and new middle-class house markets.

I dare not return.

So to answer your question, I don't really know why the Sierra Club didn't buy it.

smokymtnsteve

12-08-2004, 15:37

we are not limited by your two ignorant choices,,,how about bigots changing to accept other humans..the bigots could become moral.

WWJD?

Tha Wookie

12-08-2004, 15:52

>>
Like yourself, Wookie? :)

Trust me, you don't need to fill me in on any Abbey.

minnesotasmith

12-08-2004, 15:57

"how about bigots changing to accept other humans..the bigots could become moral."
How would it be possible to change the nature of the bigots who join La Raza, the Nation of Islam, the NAACP, etc., who applaud when whites leave an area people similiar to their members dominate?

Mags

12-08-2004, 16:07

Trust me, you don't need to fill me in on any Abbey.

Well, so far, it seems to be otherwise. ;-) But, as Steve and I both proved, any person can quote selectively to prove a point.

More importantly though, he's just an author... (though an influential one).

smokymtnsteve

12-08-2004, 16:09

MS...some problems R impossible...so heed abbey's advice.

PLEASE STAND FOR THE GOSPEL OF ABBEY!

"There are circumstances in which suicide presents a viable option; a workable alternative; the only sensible solution."

THANKS BE TO ABBEY!

.................................................. ...................

[/i][/QUOTE]

smokymtnsteve

12-08-2004, 16:10

.

More importantly though, he's just an author... (though an influential one).

BITE YOUR TONGUE!!!! :p

Rocks 'n Roots

12-08-2004, 16:44

I see some are upset about the threat to human life in the family living in the development. Because of deliberate roll-backs in air quality laws thousands of people will die directly due to air pollution from the recent actions of the pro-development Bush administration. A very subtle slow creep sort of death instead of a flash of burning fire. Land destruction possesses a similar quality.

The 1990's, in the US, experienced the highest rate of land destruction for sprawl ever seen in human history. So far, we are topping that in the 2000's. Meanwhile the earth is showing signs of potentially catastrophic global climate changes that scientists finally agree is mostly stimulated by human causes.

Somebody was writing something about "callous disregard for the truth" or something???

grandview

12-08-2004, 16:51

So you applaud arson? I applaud kickin the s**t outa the punks.
i'm with lone wolf...

it's not about dealing out justice, it's about about SELF DEFENSE.

smokymtnsteve

12-08-2004, 16:54

it's not about dealing out justice, it's about about SELF DEFENSE.

Yes it is about self-defense...EARTH FIRST!

grandview

12-08-2004, 17:01

I guess it falls back on those who fantasize they are Rambo, and those who live another day.
i guess you dont know who you're talking to.....orangebug meet the real john rambo....rambo meet an easy target for a home invasion...

just kidding around a little

Israel

12-08-2004, 17:14

Preaching to the choir, my friend.

I actually admire your suggestion, especially in this wacked thread filled with threats of violence between supposed hikers.

But I do disagree with one thing- we CAN stop development in certain areas. The Nature Conservancy does this every day -they are well funded, yet prioritize areas on ecological significance. So does the existance and continual fight of the ATC.

I can only spectulate why an environmental group didn't buy it. Have you ever tried to raise 11 million dollars?

I agree with you on this Wookie- groups can buy land and not develop it or they can even allow the owner of the land to keep their ownership and buy the development rights and keep the property from ever being developed. It takes money, but it does and can work. If you are interested in new urbanism and local developments that are new urbanism in design, email or PM me, there are several great examples in the Atlanta area....one of which is a 2 minute walk from my house.

But Wookie- come to your senses! Don't support or advocate people that break the law and are criminals! What if that was your house, or the house you were moving into? What if your dad or your brother was the builder and they just took a multimillion dollar hit due to cowards that refuse to work in the light of day??? :D

steve hiker

12-08-2004, 17:55

I would say that the people destroying the environment are the criminal scum.
You got that right. We need groups like these in the eastern US:

http://www.efn.org/~redcloud/

http://www.ecoecho.org (http://www.ecoecho.org/)

zephyr1034

12-08-2004, 17:58

smokymtnsteve

12-08-2004, 18:05

What if your dad or your brother was the builder and they just took a multimillion dollar hit due to cowards that refuse to work in the light of day??? :D

EARTH FIRST not $$$$ First, $$$ first is how our present dysfunctional society operates..the builder was the one who destroyed the bog,,,the builder is only interested in short term profits...and has no morals/ethics,,,why cry over a few million that the eco-destroyer lost...that is only money and can be replaced,,,but once you lose the wetlands they are gone.

grandview

12-08-2004, 18:28

[/QUOTE]The race thing is a real possiblity. Southern Maryland is like the Deep South in its attitudes, although this is changing as the city expands and brings in new people. But the old ways die hard. Just look at Alabama, which recently voted not to take racism out of its constitution.

We'll have to see what the investigators come up with first.[/QUOTE]

i don't think it's a fair judgement to imply the deep south as having some sort of inferior attitude. the civil war, unfortunately perhaps, was not waged on moral ideals..the northern US doesn't have a monopoly on virtue. and obiviously racism isn't restricted to one so called race....

in my opinion...

steve hiker

12-08-2004, 18:48

If neighborhoods no longer went Third World, those that would perceive that moving would restore the neighborhood they agreed to move into would lose that frequent motivation for moving, along with the development it spawns. "Integration is a chronologically-defined, temporary phenomenon. It comes into existence when the first minority moves into a neighborhood, and lasts until the last white moves out."
You got that right. After decades of breeding blacks like teenage cockroaches with federal welfare money and food (literally), the corn-fed black population has ruined traditional suburbs in places like Atlanta, New Orleans, and DC, causing whites to go further and further out for a decent place to live. The result? Endless development.

smokymtnsteve

12-08-2004, 18:55

oh my steve hiker..why R U speaking of my computer goddess like that??..she is a wonderful woman, smart, good job loving and giving,,,one of my favorite goddesses..and she is a BLACK WOMAN! she is not from africa though,,she is a pure American from Detroit. From a wealthy family, her father is/was a executive for JEEP!

U will find that the welfare rolls have many more "whites" than "blacks"

The Old Fhart

12-08-2004, 19:09

What is so amazing is that Steve Hiker could use his single brain cell to compose a post with such garbage.

Jack Tarlin

12-08-2004, 19:15

I was going to stay outta this one altogether, but since I was specifically asked (by Mountain Dew) for a response:

If I caught someone trying to burn down my house for any reason whatsoever while my family was in it, I'd very happily shoot them. (And it isn't just a family or personal matter.....if I saw someone doing the same to my neighbor's house, I'd feel inclined to do the same thing).

If someone has philosophical objections to an impending development or construction project, then there are ways you can get involved in order to prevent it, or legally halt it, assuming you have a legitimate and legal argument.

Torching someone's private property, especially when it puts lives at risk, is indefensible. Period. And arson ALWAYS puts lives at risk-----there are plenty of firefighters who've been killed or injured battling fires in vacant buildings. So for the folks who seem to be saying "It's OK to do this if the building is empty or not finished yet", gimme a break. This is a ridiculous argument.

Of all of the folks who've contributed to this dialogue so far who seem to think that eco-terrorism is acceptable, I have a question: What if it was YOUR house that someone deemed poorly cited, placed or planned; what if it was YOUR house or family that was threatened? Would you still be so enthusiastic about defending someone's right to destroy it?

I doubt it.

Imagine if you will, that someone torched the house of one of these folks who seem to think that eco-terrorism of this sort is OK. Imagine that the arsonists were caught in the act. Would the first reaction of the homeowners be:

1. Engage in a dialogue with the arsonists and listen to their explanations for their actions.

2. Realize that the arsonists had a legitimate beef, and assist them in destroying their own homes.

3. Realize that the arsonists were criminal scumbags who needed to be resisted in any way possible, and that the surviving arsonists should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Now tell me......if any of the folks on this thread who so willingly approve of arson, attempted murder, and eco-terrorism were to be on the RECEIVING end of such behavior.....what do you think THEIR initial re-action would be at the time, if it was THEIR property or loved ones who were being attacked?

I think we all know the answer. And so do they, tho they'll never admit it.

But to get back to Mountain Dew's question: Yeah, if someone were, for any reason, to try and burn down my house with me or my family in it (or to be caught doing so when we weren't in it), well, hell yeah, I'd happily shoot 'em.

And let's be honest. So would anyone else.

smokymtnsteve

12-08-2004, 19:21

Of all of the folks who've contributed to this dialogue so far who seem to think that eco-terrorism is acceptable, I have a question: What if it was YOUR house that someone deemed poorly cited, placed or planned; what if it was YOUR house or family that was threatened? Would you still be so enthusiastic about defending someone's right to destroy it?

.

ask a palestinian or an Iraqi...

Jack Tarlin

12-08-2004, 19:42

smokymtnsteve

12-08-2004, 19:50

Steve:

How wonderful for you that you're heading to Alaska. I truly wish you well there.

I am equally delighted that along with sharing your travel plans, you've also informed us that your Internet time will become much more limited in the future.

Considering the content and wit of some of your posts, I'd haveta say that Christmas on Whiteblaze just came early. Bon voyage.

well don't consider it a xmas gift Jumping Jack...as I don't believe in nor do I celebrate such holidays...course the computer goddess is building me a lap top with a cell phone connection ..so I'll be around. ;)

grandview

12-08-2004, 20:05

ask a palestinian or an Iraqi...
off off topic thought:
on the other hand, ask the thousands of soldiers/marines laying brick and pounding nails this very hour...

there over there leveling and then rebuilding structures to protect your right to read your abbey books without the threat of the CDC in atlanta being blown up by islamic extremists and filling the atlanta air with all kinds of serious crap.

The comparison of a home owner defending life, liberty, and property against eco terrorists and a pissed off Iraqi taking a shot at patroling units doesn't seem to connect. And doesn't come close to connecting with teenage palestinians strapping explosives to themselves and blowing up a bunch of israelis at a sbarro pizza joint or coming of age celebrations.

tribes

12-08-2004, 20:07

Torching someone's private property, especially when it puts lives at risk, is indefensible. Period. And arson ALWAYS puts lives at risk-----there are plenty of firefighters who've been killed or injured battling fires in vacant buildings. So for the folks who seem to be saying "It's OK to do this if the building is empty or not finished yet", gimme a break. This is a ridiculous argument.

Of all of the folks who've contributed to this dialogue so far who seem to think that eco-terrorism is acceptable, I have a question: What if it was YOUR house that someone deemed poorly cited, placed or planned; what if it was YOUR house or family that was threatened? Would you still be so enthusiastic about defending someone's right to destroy it?

I doubt it.

I agree with Jack. I hate guns so I would have to use my Louisville Slugger. Jersey style, ya know. Break both of your kneecaps then call the police. You can think about the boglands while you sit through the pain of two broken kneecaps. :datz

I am all for land preservation and regional planning. The fact that their is a demand for new housing dictates that new homes will continue to be built. You will be hard pressed to find as much sprawl as I have seen in the last 28 years of my life in Northern NJ. The improvements were already made by the developer (roads, utilities, etc) and the housing units were already in play. Even if they succeeded in destroying the houses, they would only be rebuilt. This foolish act accomplishes nothing and compromises private property, one of the most cherished elements of our less than perfect system.

Jack makes the point of firefighters and emergency worker's lives being put at risk everytime a fire is fought. These eco retardo terrorists are too stupid to know that this fight was already lost and to concentrate their efforts to the next fight. In a legal way of course. I have watched lots of eco groups in north Jersey fight subdivisions in environmentally sensitive areas with pretty good success. Unfortunately, in the end, if the developers can come up with enough scratch, they will get whatever they want.

weary

12-08-2004, 20:20

.....So to answer your question, I don't really know why the Sierra Club didn't buy it.

Nor, do I. But I have some thoughts. Having been involved in fundraising to protect environmental lands since I retired from getting paid for my labors nearly 14 years ago -- and from time to time before then -- I can attest that funds are not now, nor have they ever been easy to acquire.

It's especially difficult for the Sierra Club since the group gave up its tax exemption to engage in political discussion.

I have found in fund-raising that it's easy to find people who offer good advice. But very hard to find people who will dig into their pockets and capital assets and provide significant donations.

I've mentioned on these forums from time to time our efforts to provide a buffer around the trail corridor in Maine, which for much of its length is only 200 feet wide and only rarely more than 1,000 feet wide.

That wasn't important 20 years ago when the trail was laid out through commercial forest lands, which already provided a buffer of sorts. No one likes clearcuts, but in the Maine "rain" forest, they green over quickly with raspberry bushes, and few hikers notice.

But that equation has long since ended. The owners now are almost all land speculators -- who have jacked up the price far beyond what the land can support for timber management. Some on this list have postulated that there is no problem, since none of the land has been developed.

However, being a conservative the thought keeps persisting that investors who pay more than land is worth for growing trees are likely at some point to look for other uses, like growing condominiums.

Condos, of course, are not rare outside of Maine along the AT. In Maine we have a one time opportunity. What we all thought of as commercial forest lands are no longer that. These lands are players in a speculative game.

If I could somehow convince people, AT hikers, hiker wanna bes, and AT supporters, could together easily contribute the funds we need to acquire the most critical of these needed AT buffers before the speculative fervor makes it impossible.

Or we can do what humans have done since the beginning of history -- pay real attention only after it's too late to do anything significant.

The Maine Appalachian TRail Land Trust truly needs some serious contributions from the hiking and land conservation community. We welcome every dollar.

But most important are those who can bring themselves to commit some of their capital accumulations to this critical task. A thousand, thousand dollar contributions could do enormous good today. In a few years such contributions will be largely insignificant.

Yeah. I know. None of us can afford $1,000. But ponder the possibility of 8 O'clock coffee brewed at home as compared with flavored coffee at $1.50 a pop; a simple Bud, compared with a Yuppie beer -- whatever.

We are not a poor nation. Most of us on this forum are not even remotely poor by world standards.

But we do have an opportunity to make a difference that will last long beyond our existence on this earth.

Sorry, for the rant. Open www.matlt.org and do whatever your conscience suggests. Or send me a private message if you have questions, or thoughts.

Weary

Rocks 'n Roots

12-08-2004, 20:36

Unfortunately, in the end, if the developers can come up with enough scratch, they will get whatever they want.
Ehp! Grumph. Glafoolb...

Tha Wookie

12-08-2004, 20:55

what if it was YOUR house or family that was threatened? Would you still be so enthusiastic about defending someone's right to destroy it?

Hey jack, you forget that it already WAS someone's home, before the initial destruction began -only those inhabitants can't fight back. That's why people sometimes lend them a hand.

I know from reading your posts that you value trees, animals, lichen, and ecosystems much less than myself, so I don't expect you to agree with me that there already was a crime commited -not just a breaking and entering, but an all-out annihalation of life.

But just do me a favor and think about the fact that this wasn't any area. This place could have been built somewhere else. This was an endangered ecosystem, important not just for the wild creatures, but for people (clean water) and our cultural identity as Americans who occupy this land at least for a short while.

As I said earlier, I don't support how they went about it, so I don't really think your comments were directed to me. But there are plently of people out there who are ready to draw a line in the bog and stand by it no matter what the cost.

And while what they did was deplorable, it is nothing compared to what they were fighting.

Tim Rich

12-08-2004, 21:12

These vigilante criminal acts cannot be condoned or encouraged no matter how you feel about these so-called “misguided” people’s cause. As the saying goes: “extremism in the defense of virtue is a vice.” The people doing this destruction are cowards and criminal scum.

================================================== ===========

We still don't know who did this. In some ways, it fits ELF's modus operandi. However, they are generally quick to claim responsiblity for their actions, and so far they have not done so.

The race thing is a real possiblity. Southern Maryland is like the Deep South in its attitudes, although this is changing as the city expands and brings in new people. But the old ways die hard. Just look at Alabama, which recently voted not to take racism out of its constitution.

We'll have to see what the investigators come up with first.

Look at Alabama, but understand the whole piece of the proposed amendment. As originally written, it neatly struck racism from the constitution. However, the legislature marked it up and added a proposal that would have been an avenue for the courts to mandate taxes based upon a judges' opinion. That's why it failed.

Don't get me wrong, though. I grew up in Alabama. Birmingham remains a backward, racist city where they break out the fire hoses and police dogs for entertainment. Churches are bombed regularly. KKK rallies are held in public parks. The stench of smoke belching steel mills is everywhere. Streets are unpaved and there's no public sanitation. You folks up north wouldn't like it all down here. Tell your friends.

Tim Rich

12-08-2004, 21:17

Nor, do I. But I have some thoughts. Having been involved in fundraising to protect environmental lands since I retired from getting paid for my labors nearly 14 years ago -- and from time to time before then -- I can attest that funds are not now, nor have they ever been easy to acquire.

It's especially difficult for the Sierra Club since the group gave up its tax exemption to engage in political discussion.

I have found in fund-raising that it's easy to find people who offer good advice. But very hard to find people who will dig into their pockets and capital assets and provide significant donations.

I've mentioned on these forums from time to time our efforts to provide a buffer around the trail corridor in Maine, which for much of its length is only 200 feet wide and only rarely more than 1,000 feet wide.

That wasn't important 20 years ago when the trail was laid out through commercial forest lands, which already provided a buffer of sorts. No one likes clearcuts, but in the Maine "rain" forest, they green over quickly with raspberry bushes, and few hikers notice.

But that equation has long since ended. The owners now are almost all land speculators -- who have jacked up the price far beyond what the land can support for timber management. Some on this list have postulated that there is no problem, since none of the land has been developed.

However, being a conservative the thought keeps persisting that investors who pay more than land is worth for growing trees are likely at some point to look for other uses, like growing condominiums.

Condos, of course, are not rare outside of Maine along the AT. In Maine we have a one time opportunity. What we all thought of as commercial forest lands are no longer that. These lands are players in a speculative game.

If I could somehow convince people, AT hikers, hiker wanna bes, and AT supporters, could together easily contribute the funds we need to acquire the most critical of these needed AT buffers before the speculative fervor makes it impossible.

Or we can do what humans have done since the beginning of history -- pay real attention only after it's too late to do anything significant.

The Maine Appalachian TRail Land Trust truly needs some serious contributions from the hiking and land conservation community. We welcome every dollar.

But most important are those who can bring themselves to commit some of their capital accumulations to this critical task. A thousand, thousand dollar contributions could do enormous good today. In a few years such contributions will be largely insignificant.

Yeah. I know. None of us can afford $1,000. But ponder the possibility of 8 O'clock coffee brewed at home as compared with flavored coffee at $1.50 a pop; a simple Bud, compared with a Yuppie beer -- whatever.

We are not a poor nation. Most of us on this forum are not even remotely poor by world standards.

But we do have an opportunity to make a difference that will last long beyond our existence on this earth.

Sorry, for the rant. Open www.matlt.org and do whatever your conscience suggests. Or send me a private message if you have questions, or thoughts.

Weary

This all sounds good, Weary, but as dishonest as you are in many of your posts I don't know when you're giving an accurate portrayal of the issues.

smokymtnsteve

12-08-2004, 21:48

And while what they did was deplorable, it is nothing compared to what they were fighting.

agree.........

weary

12-08-2004, 21:49

This all sounds good, Weary, but as dishonest as you are in many of your posts I don't know when you're giving an accurate portrayal of the issues.
Well, from time to time I may exaggerate in the interests of rhetoric. But my sense is that I am as honest as most of those I read on these forums.

Perhaps, you could tell us where you think I've been dishonest as a starter.

Weary

orangebug

12-08-2004, 22:58

Repeating an earlier post, no environmental group has taken credit for this arson. I am impressed with the number of folks willing to jump to this conclusion, and willing to endorse such environmental terrorism.

If I was with the FBI, I'd have a good idea of just who has motive around this list.

Sleep well tonight.

Tha Wookie

12-08-2004, 23:33

nobel peace prize winner values trees

Tha Wookie

12-08-2004, 23:34

nobel peace prize winner values trees
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041208/sc_nm/nobel_peace_dc_1

Tim Rich

12-08-2004, 23:43

Well, from time to time I may exaggerate in the interests of rhetoric. But my sense is that I am as honest as most of those I read on these forums.

Perhaps, you could tell us where you think I've been dishonest as a starter.

Weary

I don't catalog your, or anyone else's, transgressions. It's not worth my time. Without having to go back very far, your characterization of Washington today is dishonorable and/or dishonest.

SGT Rock

12-09-2004, 00:05

I think the point really is that a lot of us that would defend our house and find it deplorable what has happened also value the ecology that was destroyed and hate to see it go. BUT, we do not want the US to de-evolve to the point that such action becomes the norm when people do not get their way. Urban sprawl is bad, destroying wetlands is also a bad thing, as well as a lot of other things that could be on anyone's list like abortion, racism, sexism, etc. But to condone someone that has lost a fight on some issue to resort to firebombing or other violent means to fight what they see is wrong is leading down a pig-path that we don't really want or need. I have seen such a place and it isn't pretty, and then we would all live in fear that someone that has a grudge against something we do would also act in kind.

Well I am probably preaching to def ears, so I'll shut up now.

bearbait2k4

12-09-2004, 00:12

The sad thing about this, and other extremist actions taken to protest the destruction of our environment is that, most often, this is the only way that these stories of the destruction of the environment even make it to the first page of the newspaper, or even in the newspaper at all. If people didn't firebomb the houses, do you think that there would have even been a news report on the subject of the bogs being destroyed?

These people that choose a method of "terrorism" to speak out do so because they are backed into a corner, or just feel that they have little other choice to get their point across. I certainly don't condone it, but the sad fact is that these "vigilantes" know that this is the only action that will really make this story newsworthy. It is what will bring their cause into the spotlight. Sure, try civil disobedience. Try non-violent protests. People have non-violent protests over environmental distruction, practically, on a daily basis. What becomes of it? Nothing - - it's not exciting news. It's not the big story.

Our media picks and chooses what news we see and hear, usually within a 30 minute time-frame, because God forbid we interrupt CSI or Survivor 85,000 with some kind of breaking news. People would riot (as they practically did in Houston a couple of weeks ago when a breaking news report cut off the last 15 minutes of CSI. So many people wrote in to complain that the broadcasting company issued a public apology and rebroadcast the entire episode).

Long story short, people don't care to hear about, do anything about, or even report about our continuous destruction of the environment. It should be at the top of the list, not too far under education, but it isn't even an issue. So.......in the long and short run, you can expect activities like this to increase, not just with the environment, though...but also with every other issue that is neglected by the media and the country.

Kim Clark

12-09-2004, 00:59

nobel peace prize winner values trees
Cool!

But the story didn't say how many houses she burned.

smokymtnsteve

12-09-2004, 01:01

Well I am probably preaching to def ears, so I'll shut up now.

LOL....very good..but I hear U loud and clear... :D

and as U always say folks who think they disagree ...agree more than they think :p

and I agree with U...I know that U have seen lost of death and destruction...it's not a pretty sight...

I agree we don't want the USA to de-volve (state of GA doesn't believe in evoulution int the first place HAHA) ..into having to fight to have a decent place to live,,,but I Fear that we are already going down that Pig path...
but which side is making the mess and causing the first strike??

My home is the planet earth...I am a citizen of Earth, the USA just happens to be the political enity that is control this particular land mass upon which I was borned and live. therefore my first loyalty is to EARTH, my home, when someone attacks your home EARTH when do you fight back to defend your home???

Most here have agreed that they would fight and kill to defend thier home, what is so different about fighting to save your earth home???

If we don't defend our earth home and protect it against eco-destroyers..
then U will not be needing that house, which is just a building, cause someone will have destroyed your home, earth. so we agree, we would both defend our home.

as to the Leon Uris reference, Mila 18 is the story of a jewish ghetto in WWII
I was not comparing the holocaust to the fire bombing of a house,,

Mr Uris used the setting/context of the polish ghetto to ask explore the bigger isssue of WHEN does a people stand up and fight. that is what MILA 18 is actually about.

whitedove

12-09-2004, 01:33

Regardless of who is responsible for burning those houses it was an act of terrorism. If it was the environmentalists, is that really a sensible plan of action to help protect our resources and land? It's pure stupidity and shows serious lack of judgment. It is not going to make any one take notice in a positive way and further the cause for protecting this Earth. They are no better than the terrorist cowardly dogs who are responsible for 9/11 or the Oklahoma City bombings. Would any one say those causes were furthered by actions such as that? I sure as hell didn't turn Muslim or kill my Senator nor do I have anything but extreme disgust for those responsible. Yes it got lots of media attention....all negative!

I am a very strong advocate for protecting our Earth, I write my elected officials, I write companies, I protest, I boycott, if I had money I would buy land or contribute to those who would to protect the land and species upon it but I draw the line at lowering myself, my values and my integrity by committing an act of terror to get my point across and I used to live in Chemical Valley WV I still didn't burn Dupont down or kill the CEO no matter how angry, upset or frustrated I would get. Some battles are lost yes but many are won. If you want theses stories to make the news in a humane intelligent way why don't you stop posting so much here, stop reading so many books you can quote the Abbey like Baptist do the Bible and start getting out and doing something constructive.

And as far as protecting my children and family if someone were to come to my house and try to harm them no matter the "great" cause, I think a quick killing shows too much mercy, a long drawn out skinning alive or crushing would be much better.

Nothing is resolved with acts of terrorism.

Rocks 'n Roots

12-09-2004, 01:38

Whitedove:

What is your viewpoint on the Boston Tea Party and the British perspective on that?

We have an unprecedented sprawl rate in America happening at a time when global deforestation is starting to show negative effects on a world scale. Could you show me something that will slow or control this in your logic?

Kim Clark

12-09-2004, 01:52

What is your viewpoint on the Boston Tea Party and the British perspective on that?THOSE GAHDAMNED INDIANS!

I agree with Roots, what a great accomplishment!

tHE insurance adjusters are already on-site. The framers and carpenters have been re-scheduled. 24/7 security guards have just been contracted. Anybody want to bet against me? I'll take your money.

steve hiker

12-09-2004, 01:56

Whitedove:

What is your viewpoint on the Boston Tea Party and the British perspective on that?
His view is that the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism. So was the firing on British soldiers by minuitemen. Why, those reckless criminals should have worked from within the Crown and lawfully petitioned the King with their greivances.

Kim Clark

12-09-2004, 02:03

whitedove

12-09-2004, 02:18

My opinion on the Brits and the Boston Tea Party. LOL kind of stretching WAY back in the history books aren't you? But that is very good to do, we can learn alot from the past. It doesn't matter what my opinion is about at all because as far as I am concerned the bottom line is that sacrificing human beings in the name of Mother Nature is a cowardice act.

>>We have an unprecedented sprawl rate in America happening at a time when global deforestation is starting to show negative effects on a world scale. Could you show me something that will slow or control this in your logic<<

Global deforestation on a world scale? Yes you are very correct in that. My logic?? you mean in other ways then burning and killing people? Maybe you need to reread my post, its all there.

So are you saying as a world power we should go wipe out not only the sprawl here in America but maybe a few other nations as well. Let's see maybe take the first borns? Is that enough? How do you propose to cut the sprawl? What is it that you do to help fight this deforestation yourself?

smokymtnsteve

12-09-2004, 02:21

And with Steve Hiker on your side, Rocky baby, you're in some fine company now.

yea I disagree with steve hiker on the race issue..but U can fix that ...introduce him to some nice girls and he'd get over that issue real quick. :D

Mountain Dew

12-09-2004, 02:34

Old Fhart...Forget about me ever asking you to chime in on a topic again. Your answer was better than anything I could have come up with in weeks if ever.
---------------
Lone Wolf... "Some men are men. Other men are liberal pussies." --- hahahaaaaa and you Lone Wolf.....How do you always say in one sentense what takes others a paragraph ? Trully hilarious comment. Forgive me for anything I ever said about your Harley..... lol
----------------
bloodroot[/B]....."No it's those who stand up for themselves and those who sit back in the corner sucking their thumbs in the fetal position." --- Are you LW's son ? FUNNY
----------------
[B]Baltimore Jack..."Considering the content and wit of some of your posts, I'd haveta say that Christmas on Whiteblaze just came early. Bon voyage."--- oh man.....I bet even the victim of that laughed after reading the comment.
-------------------
Wookie aka The WB member who takes up for attempted murderers while calling them "misguided".
Wookie, "Did you learn that kind of talk at Dallas Baptist University, where you studied "criminal law" as an undergrad?--- Glad to see you capitalized the name of my well respected school and showed it the respect it deserves. No, I didn't learn "that kind of talk" at D.B.U. Learning to take up for my rights as a person and as an American started early in life and it continues to this day. It's not to late for you to start this journey.
Wookie, "Please, why don't you give us a lecture in character? --- You wouldn't comprehend it muchless even recognize it as english. Now I know you do alot for charity work for kids, but you show terrible character on this topic.
Wookie, "Killing? Getting "even" with guns? Slandering a fellow's girlfriend on the internet? What other tidbits of wisdom can you share with us? ---I'm glad to see you changed the word to "kill" and thus used the proper term. Well , your second sentence there ruined it. You think defending ones house and the life of ones family is getting even. Now what did you say about defining character ? I slandered your girlfriend ? Hardly. I used your words so if that slandered her then that's your doing.

steve hiker

12-09-2004, 02:37

yea I disagree with steve hiker on the race issue..but U can fix that ...introduce him to some nice girls and he'd get over that issue real quick. :D
I know (and have "known") several very nice White girls. Thus I have no interest in negros.

But to get back on topic. If your life was threatened, would you "play nice" or do what you have to to survive? Sure, the firebombing of one environmentally destructive subdivision will not in itself save the Earth. But it's a damn good start, as an attention getter at the very least. As someone pointed out earlier, would the media have ever carried this story if not for this act of sensationalism?

Environmentalism has to be PUSHED as an issue or we will all die before our time is due, as a species. Some may say, "Look we're already in the 6th major extinction event in Earth's history so Let's Party and loot what's there while we have time." But for the rest of us, me included, I'd like to preserve and enjoy what's left of this wonderful world in the little time we have left.

smokymtnsteve

12-09-2004, 02:39

----------------
Baltimore Jack..."Considering the content and wit of some of your posts, I'd haveta say that Christmas on Whiteblaze just came early. Bon voyage."--- oh man.....I bet even the victim of that laughed after reading the comment.
-------------------
.[/QUOTE]

yea. I laugh at it all...i'm lucifer's advocate and it's really hot down here...that's why I'm going to AK for a while, so I kin cool off :D

smokymtnsteve

12-09-2004, 02:43

As someone pointed out earlier, would the media have ever carried this story if not for this act of sensationalism?

Environmentalism has to be PUSHED as an issue or we will all die before our time is due, as a species. Some may say, "Look we're already in the 6th major extinction event in Earth's history so Let's Party and loot what's there while we have time." But for the rest of us, me included, I'd like to preserve and enjoy what's left of this wonderful world in the little time we have left.

well we certainly agree on those two points and two outa three ain't bad :clap

Mountain Dew

12-09-2004, 02:44

Pencil Pusher

12-09-2004, 09:18

If the environmental wackos did do this, it's kind of ironic they heavily damaged the environment in order to 'save' it.

Blue Jay

12-09-2004, 09:32

Blue Jay...You calling me Illiterate all the while making several grammar mistakes yourself is like a person calling another "stuped". Thanks for doing the easy work of once again exposing your limitless ignorance to the masses.

No edit button, however my syntax was correct. Your problem is more content than grammer. Actually, since you brought it up, :banana you are also stuped.

Blue Jay

12-09-2004, 09:44

Damn, I miss that edit button. A wise man could be stumped on a hard question and not be able to answer correctly, some people could know the correct answer but still not be able to answer correctly because they cannot form a sentence. That person is stuped.

Blue Jay

12-09-2004, 09:45

I know I missed the ";". :banana

minnesotasmith

12-09-2004, 09:53

"There are circumstances in which suicide presents a viable option; a workable alternative; the only sensible solution."

Well, with all your apparently insoluble problems (chief among them being an almost total unwillingness to consider new views of nearly intractable issues), all I can say about that is:

We'll (some of us, anyway) miss you! ;)
================================================
Zephyr1034, you posted that this arson terrorism is probably not ELF's due to their not claiming credit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they often or typically act in a totally decentralized manner, where active individuals or cells mostly don't know anyone else in that part of the movement, let alone closely communicate or coordinate with them? I remember reading a line someone quoted from an ALF-sympathetic site, which read that 'anyone who does an act of animal liberation in ALF's name is an ALF member', or some such.

Blue Jay

12-09-2004, 10:02

I am a very strong advocate for protecting our Earth, I write my elected officials, I write companies, I protest, I boycott, if I had money I would buy land or contribute to those who would to protect the land and species upon it but I draw the line at lowering myself, my values and my integrity by committing an act of terror to get my point across and I used to live in Chemical Valley WV I still didn't burn Dupont down or kill the CEO no matter how angry, upset or frustrated I would get. Some battles are lost yes but many are won. Nothing is resolved with acts of terrorism.

Very good post. First, I have not yet heard any word that an environmental group has commited this arson as yet. It's all speculation, so far. If so, I also believe it to be clearly counterproductive to their goals.

Second, you mention some battles are lost but many are won. Damn, few have been won. As for Dupont, they are actively and openly causing death and destruction around the world for money. There appears to be no "legal" way of stopping them or even slowing them down. They own, outright, most governments including ours.

Third, if the United States and your home town were taken over by an invader (it could happen we have almost no military in THIS country anymore). Would we fight with any means necessary? I believe we would. I also believe we would be labeled terrorists. To say nothing is resolved with terrorism is flat out wrong. Often terrorism is the only thing you can do to evil that is more powerful than you are.

smokymtnsteve

12-09-2004, 10:05

ah la french resistance...

TJ aka Teej

12-09-2004, 10:11

Regardless of who is responsible for burning those houses it was an act of terrorism.

Unless it was the developer, looking for an insurance payday. It is, after all, December. High season for insurance fraud, especially profitable amid the current Right Wing created terrorism hysteria.

Israel

12-09-2004, 10:19

As for Dupont, they are actively and openly causing death and destruction around the world for money. There appears to be no "legal" way of stopping them or even slowing them down. They own, outright, most governments including ours.

They own the backpacking world too since we buy their products, habitually, continually, and expensively. Heck, most people aren't happy using sticks for hiking poles any more...gotta have those Leki's! I tell you what, whoever got hikers to think they looked cool walking through the woods in the summer carrying ski poles is a marketing genius! :D

Tim Rich

12-09-2004, 11:17

Unless it was the developer, looking for an insurance payday. It is, after all, December. High season for insurance fraud, especially profitable amid the current Right Wing created terrorism hysteria.
A friction fire* is always a possibility, but I don't see it as being any more profitable than in decades past. In my experience, individuals, small construction companies and freelance builders are far more likely to resort to this, usually when they're at the end of their rope. A sub dispute is also a possibility, but large builders usually have more employees and fewer subs than smaller contractors. Lennar built 32,000 homes last year, so I don't think they'd try to torch thirty. There were only seven homes in the development for sale, so I'd say over twenty of them were under contract or closed.

I still think it has an environmental motive. I don't think the racial motive will pan out. Although I read a report that the majority of occupants moving in Hunters Brooke were African American, the Indian Head census shows a 56/38 split between Whites and African Americans, respectively, so there's a significant mix already.

Take Care,

Tim

* A friction fire is the heat and combustion caused by a mortgage rubbing against an insurance policy.

Tim Rich

12-09-2004, 11:18

ah la french resistance...

French resistance. You don't see those words together very often... :D

Tha Wookie

12-09-2004, 11:24

...your characterization of Washington today is dishonorable and/or dishonest.
How else would someone characterize Washington? ;)

Tim Rich

12-09-2004, 11:29

How else would someone characterize Washington? ;)

touche' :D

Guilty of poor reference and sentence structure. The General, not the Capitol.

Blue Jay

12-09-2004, 11:33

French resistance. You don't see those words together very often... :D

Without the French we would be speaking English. Their support when we were terrrorists to England, was key to our success. The French Resistance kept some German Soldiers busy elsewhere so there were less to mow us down on D-Day. I know it's popular to hate all other countries now, but we may need allies again some day.

sgtjinx

12-09-2004, 11:36

In Florida, I heard on the TV that the fire was being called a hate crime. Because some black people were buying the houses in the area. If isn't one thing it's another. :-?

Tim Rich

12-09-2004, 11:57

Without the French we would be speaking English. Their support when we were terrrorists to England, was key to our success. The French Resistance kept some German Soldiers busy elsewhere so there were less to mow us down on D-Day. I know it's popular to hate all other countries now, but we may need allies again some day.

I don't really (deep, deep down) think you hate America, but you appear to detest our current administration. I don't hate the French, but the Chirac administration's complicity in the oil for food scandal (which may well prove to be the largest financial fraud in world history) invalidates their actions. I do enjoy French jokes, though.

Why to French tanks have rearview mirrors? So they can see the enemy.

Tha Wookie

12-09-2004, 12:10

I got to throw this our and see what you think.

Since there is a mix of environmental, social, and oh-my-God-freak-out-because -the-terrorists-are-in-my-cellar viewpoints, I want to know about the following*:

[Insert Bob Marley's Catch a Fire]

In the U.S. Carribean Islands (and many others down there), arson is a major action that has shaped policy, economy, and society. During colonial settlement, african slaves were imported to work in the sugar cane fields. Even after slaverey was illegal in the US (being the last country to do so), slaves in the islands (mostly dutch, english, and american at the time) where still engaging in slave labor. There seemed to be no end, mostly because they were so isolated, and the economy depended on the labor.

Finally, the slaves had enough. They realized government was not going to step in and buck the tide. So they turned to the fields, and lit them on fire. Entire islands billowed smoke over the blue.

"Slave driver, the table has turned. Catch a fire, you're gonna get burned."
-Bob Marley

Their efforts succeeded. They won their own freedom through arson. Why? Because their oppressors had a major soft spot: the economy. You see, they weren't smarter, stronger, on a higher spiritual plane, and certainly less numerous. The sugar farmers/slave drivers could not recover. They left. Today you can still find some sugar cane plants, here and there.

I imagine that some people in here would call them terrorists if that was today. I'm certain the media would, because "terrorism" sells commercials. But what this "witch" label does is tells people that if they commit an extreme act of civil disobedience, they will be hung.

So my point here is not that this case is justified, because I really don't know enough specifics. Who knows, it could have been the owners, as was previously mentioned. My point is that extreme acts of civil disobedience are to the point of being severely oppressed in today's terror-panic. But sometimes they are needed.

*Note that I am not using this to justify the house burning, but rather to guage the effectiveness of such actions. Repeat: I am not advocating arson but comparing this to another story.

frankcornbread

12-09-2004, 12:13

Tim Rich

12-09-2004, 12:26

*snipped*

Even after slaverey was illegal in the US (being the last country to do so), slaves in the islands (mostly dutch, english, and american at the time) where still engaging in slave labor.

*snipped*

I've seen that the U.S. was last in outlawing slavery, but I don't think that's correct. Cuba 1886, Brazil 1888, Yemen 1962 and a host of other nations.

http://www.freetheslaves.net/slavery_today/slavery.html

frankcornbread

12-09-2004, 12:28

Some men are men. Other men are liberal pussies.
And some manage to find higher ground somewhere in the middle.

FC

grandview

12-09-2004, 16:37

His view is that the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism. So was the firing on British soldiers by minuitemen. Why, those reckless criminals should have worked from within the Crown and lawfully petitioned the King with their greivances.
AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE WOULD HAVE COME WITH OR WITHOUT THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION...THE REVOLUTION WAS A FINICIAL/PERSONAL AGENDA OF A RELETIVELY FEW IN NUMBER WHO MARKETED THEIR CAUSE WELL.

NOT A REASONABLE COMPARISON AT ALL TO THE CURRENT TOPIC.

grandview

12-09-2004, 16:47

grandview

12-09-2004, 16:55

grandview

12-09-2004, 17:00

Without the French we would be speaking English. Their support when we were terrrorists to England, was key to our success. The French Resistance kept some German Soldiers busy elsewhere so there were less to mow us down on D-Day. I know it's popular to hate all other countries now, but we may need allies again some day.
the war (as most german leaders new all to well) was over as soon as russia started pushing germany back to the west. it was a matter of either killing their insane leader themselves and brokering for peace with a stronger hand or waiting until the alies squeezed them in so they could take their trusty suicide pills or excape to south america.

Puck

12-09-2004, 18:03

Has there been any other developments in this story? CNN stated that there are other motives besides "ecoterrorism" I feel if it was envirnmentaly motivated they were a bit late. The idea behind monkeywrenching is not to let the custruction get started.

steve hiker

12-09-2004, 18:32

AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE WOULD HAVE COME WITH OR WITHOUT THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION...THE REVOLUTION WAS A FINICIAL/PERSONAL AGENDA OF A RELETIVELY FEW IN NUMBER WHO MARKETED THEIR CAUSE WELL.
Interesting. So the founding fathers really weren't patriots, they were just selfish capitalists taking the law into their own hands through sedition and acts of terrorism. :-?

Why is it that I hear a British accent when I read grandview's post?

weary

12-09-2004, 18:36

....I have not yet heard any word that an environmental group has commited this arson as yet. .....Second, you mention some battles are lost but many are won. Damn, few have been won. .....
No influential environmental group burned down these buildings. There are always a few nuts who appear from time to time. But I have worked with scores of groups over the decades. None think that destroying things is a useful tactic.

Secondly, victories are never total and never final, but with the exception of the past four years the quality of our environment has steadily, albeit, slowly improved.

I see the evidence every morning when I look out my front window. The marsh and tidal cove that when I moved here in 1962 was a stinking open sewer, is now filled with waterfowl on fall days and crowded with fishermen all summer.

I spent the day with a group worrying about development in the wildlands of Maine. Thirty years ago we would have been arguing about passing a law. Today we argued about how best to use the law to minimize the likely impact.

A decade ago I served on a Governor's Committee created to set land acquisition priorities in Maine. After months of deliberations, I argued for a resolution that called for a 20 percent increase in protected land within 5 years and urged a doubling by 2020. We wrangled over the issue for hours. Finally and reluctantly the group agreed. The state has already far surpassed these goals.

Progress is being made. Victories are possible. Our strongest enemies are those who refuse to take part because they believe, "Damn, few (victories)have been won," and those who salve their consciences by saying, "I can't afford to give."

For the latter, a more accurate characterization for many would be "I don't want to give up my fun time, or to give up any luxuries to help."

Weary

grandview

12-09-2004, 21:22

Interesting. So the founding fathers really weren't patriots, they were just selfish capitalists taking the law into their own hands through sedition and acts of terrorism. :-?

Why is it that I hear a British accent when I read grandview's post?
good grief dude...i'm from west virginia....and no that's not what i said...i don't plan on breaking it down any easier for you.

whitedove

12-09-2004, 21:40

Weary,

Awesome post, I couldn't agree more.

Isreal,

You made a very good point.

Grandview,
I thought your statement was very understandable and most assurdly true, some of us got it.

I would like to know how many on here who are advocating violence and stating terrorism is the only way now to save the planet...actually do anything such as recycle, walk/take a bus instead of taking the car or do without their factory made gear.

Jack Tarlin

12-09-2004, 22:44

I wish that when people wanted to engage in America bashing they could at least get their facts straight. Thanks to Tim for attempting to provide Wookie with a badly needed history lesson. In point of fact, there were quite a few nations that permitted slavery after it was abolished here, but why let a few facts get in your way, eh Wook? In fact, there are STILL nations in Africa that enslave others but these are human rights violations inflicted by Arabs or Blacks, so this means we won't be seeing Wook too indignant about it. And of course, the practice of slavery existed in Africa LONG before European exploration and colonialization, i.e. slavery was decidedly NOT introduced to that continent by insidious Britons, Dutchmen and others, as Wookie would like us to believe. In point of fact, the practice had existed there fur untold centuries.

In another post, where Wookie objected to me commenting that I thought arson and destruction of private property was a bad thing, he got personal, and said "I know from reading your posts that you value trees, animals, lichens, and ecosystems much lesss than myself."

Good Lord, what a monumentally pompous and arrogant thing to say.

In point of fact, Wook, you know as much about me what I value as you seem to know about world history. Which is to say not much.

And you seem to value, or at least approve of the actions of vandals, criminals, arsonists, and night-raiding cowards.

All in all, Wook, I'll keep my values and you keep yours. But thanx for writing.

Rocks 'n Roots

12-09-2004, 23:49

And you seem to value, or at least approve of the actions of vandals, criminals, arsonists, and night-raiding cowards.

A perfect British description of the men who founded our nation. I agree they had a virgin country to exploit and had, at least, minor influences of self-interest involved in their forming of our nation and its principles. Saving the world from overdevelopment and destruction of its biosphere is a much more insidious and difficult act of altruism, I agree.

Anyone notice how those who focus on the criminality of the act fail to ever mention the state of our environment due to our main GNP object - that is, sprawl? And how that is relevant to the act? Don't fool yourself that our business status quo doesn't intend to destroy most remaining open space left in America. They just can't admit it directly without using their diversion or dependency tricks...

A follow through article today mentioned that investigators discovered 6 failed devices in 6 other houses. They aren't describing them because of the investigation.

The one resident who lived in the affected area said she had no fear of personal harm and "if they were trying to hurt her they would have".

There were several black residents living in another part of the development who said they have never been made to feel unwelcome in the town...

Tha Wookie

12-10-2004, 00:44

I wish that when people wanted to engage in America bashing they could at least get their facts straight. ...thanx for writing.
America bashing? Does it really make a huge difference if we were dead last or third from last? You need to jack your soapbox up a couple inches. :D

No comments on the rest of the post? I didn't expect any. :-?

whitedove

12-10-2004, 01:08

Rocks 'n Roots,

Are you British perchance?

Again you have brought up the sprawl, which I agreed was a problem but I also asked you what do you think is, in your logic, a way to handle the situation. You have apparently thought alot about it and must have an opinion on what to do. I am very interested in hearing your theory on how to best counter the sprawl.

Tha Wookie

12-10-2004, 01:10

In fact, there are STILL nations in Africa that enslave others but these are human rights violations inflicted by Arabs or Blacks, so this means we won't be seeing Wook too indignant about it.
Hey Jack, I believe that there are many other places with horrendous human rights. But what's point here? Do I have to talk about every single case of social unjustice to in one post?

I spend a lot of time down there in the islands, and those are the stories I know as an example that relate the fact that extreme measures of civil disobediance shouldn't be vilified on their own without a real understanding of the contextual situation. Many times in history these events have been for the bettermen of equality and life in general.

Questioning is American. Action is American. Revolution is American.

Burning random homes is not American. But we should not be so full of fear that we do not know when to light the fields.

"In another post, where Wookie objected to me commenting that I thought arson and destruction of private property was a bad thing, he got personal, and said "I know from reading your posts that you value trees, animals, lichens, and ecosystems much lesss than myself."' -Jack

Sorry if I hurt your feelings there Jack, you're right I really shouldn't have assumed that your posts represent who you really are in person.

Either ways, I apogize if that was too personal. Seriously. I know people have said to personal insults to you on this site, but I was't trying to be personal like that.

Blue Jay

12-10-2004, 08:43

Progress is being made. Victories are possible. Our strongest enemies are those who refuse to take part because they believe, "Damn, few (victories)have been won," and those who salve their consciences by saying, "I can't afford to give."

Great post Weary. I never said we should not do whatever is possible to stop the destroyers, but you are correct I do tend to forget the victories. Another example is the Hudson River. When I was growing up it was unbelievable on summer days. You could not even get near it because of the smell. Every industry dumped toxic waste into it and every town along it dumped its sewer into it untreated. I still wouldn't drink it, but it is light years better. Thank you for reminding me, but I can't help feeling with the destruction of the EPA, as pathetic as it was, and as rabid the public is in favor of environmental destruction for money, things are going backward.

wacocelt

12-10-2004, 14:07

Lordy you folks DO go on...
No matter what flavor icing you try and put on it, the people who set the fire in those houses, lived in or otherwise were WRONG and dreadfully so. I speak from experience about being wrong in matter of the law. There is always a rational alternative to commiting a crime.
I consider myself to be somewhat liberal in my personal and political views, but you threaten my family or friends with a firebomb and the police will be called after you've gotten your gasoline enema, boglands and civil suits be damned.
Todays America has too many people willing to sit at home and piss and moan about the ills of existence, post absolutely frivolous complaints on HIKING websites about how 'Racist Southern Babtists from Alabama recited the 10 Commandments while clubbing baby seals which were interfering with oil drilling in Alaska' when they have absolutely no idea how nor intention of lifting a finger to do anything about it.
To be concerned about Amercia is to be involved in America. You don't like somehting that goes on, do something to change it.

Just keep in mind, if the thing you decide to do involves an act of violence upon an innocent, there are lots of folks out there more than happy to do a few years in prison for hanging you by your feet from a tree and flaying you like a deer. Merry Christmas. Be well.

Israel

12-10-2004, 14:30

To be concerned about Amercia is to be involved in America. You don't like somehting that goes on, do something to change it.

Well said!

Rocks 'n Roots

12-10-2004, 15:18

Just keep in mind, if the thing you decide to do involves an act of violence upon an innocent, there are lots of folks out there more than happy to do a few years in prison for hanging you by your feet from a tree and flaying you like a deer. Merry Christmas. Be well.

Sounds like redneck talk just anxious to get out the possee for a lynchin' and forget everything else. I love posters who reprimand others about posting these things on a "HIKING" list - forgetting the whole time that the AT is all about conservation as the new AT CONSERVANCY emphasizes. These people should be reminded that they are out of place saying these things on a site that is based on a conservancy.

How do we curb sprawl? Well, a good way to start would be to recognize the AT for what it is and back it. Calling it a hiking place doesn't do that. Backing development of the corridor as being fair and reasonable doesn't. Attacking the political beliefs of those who stand up for Trail definition and protection doesn't. Nor does taking a right-wing talk show posture on conservancy websites in obvious defiance of what that website's object is about. Not too difficult is it?

MacKaye wasn't stupid. He saw this coming. Why do you think he put the challenge of the AT Project forth? So people could hike and form social clubs from which they shun persons who back MacKaye's perspective? It's obvious from his writings what it was meant to do. It's doing it right now. Some people just refuse to see it because they are afraid to question their comfortable concepts. The same concepts that are currently melting and denuding earth while they fiddle with Limbaugh crap and self-interested chat.

What do you do to people who kill "innocents" with reversals of clean air protections?

Jack Tarlin

12-10-2004, 17:11

Wookie---

I appereciate your latest statements, and I thank you for making them. All too often, this site DOES get personal, and I'm as guilty as anyone else.

However, I really did object to the comment about my environmental "values."

*Just outta curiousity, Wook: Do you own an automobile, or use one regularly? I don't.

*Have you flown in an airplane in the last twelve years? I haven't.

*When not travelling, do you live in a modern home, with electronic appliances, gadgets, amenities? I have exactly FIVE in my home, Wook, two lamps, a radio, a refrigerator, and a battery operated CD player. So which of us do you think uses up more of the world's precious natural resources?

*Do you have power and plumbing in your home Wook? Up until a month ago, I was living in a cabin that had neither.

The point of these comments is this----it's all well and good for someone to say that somebody else doesn't value trees, animals, lichens, and ecosystems, but I'm willing to bet that when it comes to using up the world's
resources or burning up fossil fuels, I daresay I do a whole lot less damage than a great many other folks, including, most likely, Wookie. I bet W. doesn't think much of the money grubbing power-and-light utility company
that operates in his neck of the woods, but I'm sure willing to bet he relies on it, and requires a lot more from it on a daily basis, than I do from mine.

Bottom line is that we should refrain from making personal comments about others when we don't have all the facts.

* * * *

To get back to the original idea of this thread, tho, Wookie also said:

"Burning homes is not American. But we should not be so full of fear that we do not know when to light the fields."

My, what stirring revolutionary bravado. Quick question to Wookie: What if it were YOUR home and fields, eh? What if an individual or group objected to the placement or environmental sensitivity of YOUR house and decided they were morally entitled to destroy it, perhaps while you were still in it.

Would your revolutionary enthusiasm be burning so bright then?

I really doubt it. It'd get kinda hard to stay in touch with the cyber-world and preach revolution when some moron has just torched your desk and computer.

Or are you saying, Wook, that it's OK to know when to light the fields as long as your fields aren't part of the equation? But seriously, I'm curious---are you actually saying that if a group objected to where or how your house was built, then you'd defend and applaud their right to destroy it? If this is the case, I'd like to hear you say it.

And if it's not the case, then you should say that, too.

Rocks 'n Roots

12-10-2004, 19:59

It'd get kinda hard to stay in touch with the cyber-world and preach revolution when some moron has just torched your desk and computer

It appears the movement that destroyed those houses deliberately chose incompleted and unoccupied houses to burn. There was another completed section of the subdivision with residents that was left alone. In light of this I consider Jack's words as fetching meanings that are obviously unrelated to the incident. He also completely avoids the earthwide ramifications from which the act originated.

I'd love to live in a cabin. However, as Weary points out, the average non-arsonist public relies upon the grid and its energy infrastructure and encouraged usage. It's this average profile that needs to be worked on as far as earth-friendly power sources.

The average American believes we should be developing eco-friendly energy structures. The Bush administration has been pushing for the opposite...

minnesotasmith

12-10-2004, 20:11

"The average American believes we should be developing eco-friendly energy structures."

Even if true, that wouldn't last once he/she figures out that means no air conditioning, no washing machines, clotheslines instead of clothes driers, water only coming by being hauled by hand in buckets from outside, the only heat a woodburning stove that has to be refueled every four hours tops (and you have to go get the fuel for by hand yourself), no electric lighting, no fridge/freezer (except the out-of-doors in the Northern half of the U.S. during the cooler months), and of course no computer/TV/video games/VCR...

Hey, I've actually lived that way for months, so I know what it's about. Fewer Americans would willingly switch to living that way than would consider through-hiking the AT, and all of us know how few people there are like that...

If you really want to stop sprawl and development, I told you in my post above what it would take. Bet most people here prefer sprawl.:-?

orangebug

12-10-2004, 20:17

It appears the movement that destroyed those houses deliberately chose incompleted and unoccupied houses to burn. There was another completed section of the subdivision with residents that was left alone. In light of this I consider Jack's words as fetching meanings that are obviously unrelated to the incident. He also completely avoids the earthwide ramifications from which the act originated.

I'd love to live in a cabin. However, as Weary points out, the average non-arsonist public relies upon the grid and its energy infrastructure and encouraged usage. It's this average profile that needs to be worked on as far as earth-friendly power sources. Now, you don't live in a cabin, but you do live in South Florida. Have you tried to get off the grid and use solar and wind power as others in your region? Have you information about the "movement" and provided that information to law enforcement? Obviously, you must have such information as you understand the earthwide ramifactions fro which the act originated.

Or are you channeling again?

weary

12-10-2004, 20:40

[i]Even if true, that wouldn't last once he/she figures out that means no air conditioning, no washing machines, clotheslines instead of clothes driers, water only coming by being hauled by hand in buckets from outside, the only heat a woodburning stove that has to be refueled every four hours tops (and you have to go get the fuel for by hand yourself), no electric lighting, no fridge/freezer (except the out-of-doors in the Northern half of the U.S. during the cooler months), and of course no computer/TV/video games/VCR....:-?
Total nonsense. If we don't begin now that may eventually be the only option. But if society can somehow begin to think rationally, such extreme measures will never be needed.

Weary

Rocks 'n Roots

12-10-2004, 20:45

Or are you channeling again?

It's obvious some are capable of serious discussion of sprawl and environmental actions and others are sniping with childish ad hominem taunts...

I don't think this heckler answered the points I made in the last post...

Tha Wookie

12-10-2004, 20:59

Jack-

I know the "what if" game, too. When I was a kid, I had this babysitter (she was hot, btw) to whom I held a toy gun up to her leg, and she told me, "don't ever point guns at people."

I responed, "Yeah, what if I did point a gun at you? The leg would be the best place."

She replied, "No, because there is no 'what if'. You NEVER point guns at people." We went back and forth, each saying the same thing over and over.

I learned three things that day: 1) never point guns at people 2) her legs gave me funny feelings 3) "What if" statements aren't very useful when you're arguing an adult.

There is no "What if" in my case. It would never happen. I would never pay money for or move into a place that involved unsustainable design in an endangered ecosystem like this case.

I am pretty unsettled now after moving out of my cabin last year (you can read about it in this thread). I sleep more nights in the woods than I do inside.

Yeah, I do fly, like when I was just in Mexico helping instal an environmental monitoring system for their islands in the Gulf of California under a Packard/Nature Conservancy grant, or when I went this summer out west to hike and promote the American West Coast Trail (www.thawookie.com (http://www.thawookie.com)). I'm flying again to the Virgin Islands soon to continue work on a conservation project and look at some land on an organic farm (Virgin Islands Sustainable Agriculture Institute) that I hope to purchase soon if all goes well. There I hope to get my solar system going (like I said, if it all goes well).

Yes, I have a small truck. Most of the year, it sits, collecting leaves in the bed at my family's house or at a trailhead. You win there - but you still get rides.

About the appliances, you don't have me beat. I have very little -guitar tuner, minidisk, radio, a lamp I made. My computer is one of them, but might probably use it enough to outpower all of your use. Obviously, you use one a lot also. But you must borrow it, like you get rides. (Although I know you do a great deal of walking, and I highly admire that)

My cabin did have plumbing -well water, and own septic. Some of the places I stay have it, some don't.

But so what? It's not even what we were talking about!

You said, "it's all well and good for someone to say that somebody else doesn't value trees, animals, lichens, and ecosystems, but I'm willing to bet that when it comes to using up the world's
resources or burning up fossil fuels, I daresay I do a whole lot less damage than a great many other folks, including, most likely, Wookie"

You just completely changed the subject.

Look, maybe I was wrong about what I said about you not valuing nature as much as I. I already said I was sorry if it felt personal.

It's just that I read you have a ringing tone of resentment on your posts when I or other people talk about "tree-hugging" activities or perspectives (other than the purely political - let's not go there). But those relationships are what I'm talking about. They seem to really bother you, to the point of slanderous name-calling, and charges of anti-Americanism. This makes me think you might not have that strong of a relationship with these things.

I mean, even thought we agree the house-burning was stupid and wrong, you completely ignored the other part of that first post that said, hey, just consider the fact that there was a total annihilation of life there -can't you see that it's not about "terrorism" and being anti-american? To say it again, there was already a breaking and entering and butchering and slaughtering.

I have a real relationship with nature, like I do with people, but even greater (I'm not implying you don't).
Limiting use of natural resources is certainly all good and commendable, but I'm talking about appreciating the intrinsic rights and importance of nature -even to the point that what I do or live bucks, even severely, the social tides.

I stand on the slopes of the Cascades, and listen to the slamming giants amid the chainsaws. I CAN HEAR THEM SCREAM. Everyone can hear it. Yet most choose not to. You have struck me as the latter based on your posts, no offense. But hey, what the hell do I know - you only have two lamps, but I have a hotplate (just kidding, I don't have a hotplate).

Really, I respect the way you live. Thanks for sharing that.

orangebug

12-10-2004, 22:16

I don't think this heckler answered the points I made in the last post...I thought one answered questions, which you didn't.

Let's try again.

Just how much do you know about the arsonists and their agenda? You indicated it was a movement with earthwide ramifications. Please tell us more!

I won't even ask you again about your impact on the environment by living on the grid in South Florida. My friend down there doesn't, and he's an arson investigator.

lobster

12-10-2004, 22:22

Back at one time the Androscoggin River in Lewiston caught on fire. Also, the stink peeled the paint off nearby houses. Now that's toxic.

Rocks 'n Roots

12-10-2004, 23:06

I believe their message is sprawl has reached the end of any positive benefit for mankind on a world/environmental level and the areas that are being damaged are more valuable at this point. It's pretty simple isn't OB? I didn't need that explained to me...

OB, any thoughts on how this relates to global warming and sustainability? Or natural viability and open space in America. Species decline? Quality of life?

If anything, I think plowing straight ahead during times of world climate distress shows the parading nakedness of the powers that be and their inability to deal with their actions and results. If we're damaging the earth it can only be from our mismanagement...

weary

12-10-2004, 23:44

Back at one time the Androscoggin River in Lewiston caught on fire. Also, the stink peeled the paint off nearby houses. Now that's toxic.
I don't recall hearing that it ever caught fire. But several people have told me about waking up at night, vomiting from the stench. I've followed the river quite diligently for the past 42 years, since it enters the open ocean a couple of miles south of my house.

Weary

screwysquirrel

12-11-2004, 00:22

I can say one thing reading this thread, it has really shown me how many jackasses post here. :banana

weary

12-11-2004, 00:28

I can say one thing reading this thread, it has really shown me how many jackasses post here. :banana
Well, not really very many. But occasionally someone shows up who lacks the ability participate in a serious discussion of important ideas, but can't resist commenting and posting a silly banana anyway.

Weary

orangebug

12-11-2004, 00:47

I believe their message is sprawl has reached the end of any positive benefit for mankind on a world/environmental level and the areas that are being damaged are more valuable at this point. It's pretty simple isn't OB? I didn't need that explained to me...

OB, any thoughts on how this relates to global warming and sustainability? Or natural viability and open space in America. Species decline? Quality of life?...I have no idea how the arsonists' minds work. Please go on.

And please let know how you learned this. Are you channeling, or are you a member of this secret movement with earthwide ramifications? I hadn't heard that environmental terrorists had been definitely related to this. I am certain that you know exactly what you are talking about. You've never been known to linger in left field.

whitedove

12-11-2004, 01:11

It seems Rocks 'n Roots never answers a question he was asked.

Rocks 'n Roots

12-11-2004, 01:39

A person who asks "are you channeling" probably isn't listening to the answer and probably isn't worth any serious response. There's many serious issues related to this worthy of serious discussion. I'm sorry to say I don't see any in OB's responses...

Again, it's easy to see who takes the Trail and its purpose to heart and who is mainly here for obstruction and childish taunting...

screwysquirrel

12-11-2004, 02:26

Well, not really very many. But occasionally someone shows up who lacks the ability participate in a serious discussion of important ideas, but can't resist commenting and posting a silly banana anyway.

Weary
I didn't want to mention names as not to offend anyone but I think that most people posting here know between right and wrong. I didn't need to add my two cents worth. And I don't think I mentioned your name weary, even though some of your posts do border on the inane.

weary

12-11-2004, 11:01

I didn't want to mention names as not to offend anyone but I think that most people posting here know between right and wrong. I didn't need to add my two cents worth. And I don't think I mentioned your name weary, even though some of your posts do border on the inane.
I find discussions, comments and criticisms of specific ideas and facts more useful than blanket characterizations of participants as jackasses, or specific posters as inane.

My personal policy in these matters is only to read and participate in those threads I find interesting. Therefore I'm rarely tempted to condemn discussions as inane. Occasionally, of course, subthreads of otherwise interesting discussions, get a bit off track. For example, I find that trolls who think they can make Rocks & Roots look especially silly, often end up sounding silly themselves.

Weary

lobster

12-11-2004, 12:29

Weary,

I found this on the net:

"1950’s A fire on the river near Rumford Falls due to pollution from the paper mills. This forces all communities along the river to support clean-up efforts."

Jack Tarlin

12-11-2004, 16:41

Wookie:

Good post.

But I don't think I've ever used the phrase "Anti-Americanism" in my life.

I think I've said all I can on this subject: There are folks who evidently think it's OK to vandalize and destroy other people's property and there are evidently folks who disagree. I don't think the present level of discourse is going to change anyone's mind on this.

A final thought:

Putting on a ninja suit, trespassing on someone's land, and burning down their house because you have political disagreements with the builder is, in my opinion, the moral equivalent of putting on a hooded mask, going onto your neighbor's lawn, and igniting a cross because you object to the ethnicity of the residents.

I think there are more constructive ways for people to express themselves.

I might feel that my neighbor's new house is an eyesore, his driveway too long, and that his family's two SUV's are wasteful and unnecessary. Do I therefore have the right to destroy them?

No, of course I don't. And nor does anyone else. And that is the crux of this whole discussion.

Oh. I certainly have the OPTION, if not the right, to destroy them.

Which would then give him the perfect right to shoot me dead.

Once again, I think there are more productive ways to further discussion of these issues, rather than resorting to arson and gunfire.

But others are welcome to disagree.

A final comment, and a bit of advice, to anyone who plans such activity here in New Hampshire: Be sure your will and estate are in good order before proceeding; our license plates may read "Live Free or Die!" but most of us feel that your right to live and express yourself freely stops when you hit our property lines, and I suspect most of my neighbors, regardless of their politics, would take a really dim view of anyone caught torching their homes. Whatever their motives, anyone caught pulling this sort of nonsense around here would most likely end up arguing their case before a much higher court.

And now I think it's time to move on to other things.

MOWGLI

12-11-2004, 17:22

Unless things have changed since I was in DC yesterday, I don't believe any so-called "environmental" groups - including ELF - have taken claim for this sad episode. I learned about this while reading the Washington Post on Tuesday while at Dulles airport. 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.

Any way you look at it, it's a sad sad situation.

Rocks 'n Roots

12-11-2004, 20:26

Apparently some think property rights will answer questions that are currently changing the world on a global scale. I wonder if anybody ever thought that maybe mother nature is going to start enforcing her "property lines" soon?

TJ aka Teej

12-12-2004, 00:46

It seems Rocks 'n Roots never answers a question he was asked.
Oh, sure he has:

Kneel before me! How dare you ask me to provide proof of what I claim! Just because I make stuff up doesn't make it wrong! I don't care what Benton MacKaye wrote, I only care about what I wish he wrote! You obviously hate Wingfoot! You must be a company plant! Un-AT-pro-mono-purpose-invalidationable-dis-Trail-anism is CLEARLY your only reason to be reading my posts! If Benton MacKaye was alive he'd shuffle over to you in his smoking jacket and carpet slippers and give you SUCH a static zap right on the nose!
The at-l (with the exception of Weary) became bored with Roxy's act long ago. Roxy doesn't have the stones to post on Trailplace the way he does on the at-l, so he's decided to bring his one-trick-pony side show here to Whiteblaze. As I've said before, it's evident from his posts he has no intention of contributing positively to any of the forums he joins, his obvious intent is to be a negative influence. Perhaps one day, if he hikes on the AT and meets with actual members of the AT community, he'll clean up his act. Until then Whiteblazers will just have to put up with the stinking piles of horse manure Roxy's leaving behind along the Information Superhighway.

Rocks 'n Roots

12-12-2004, 02:14

Usually, if you can make people embarrass themselves with a purely personal attack devoid of any of the subject matter at hand, smarter people will figure out what is bugging the attacker and what they can't confront. There are some exceptions though...

I believe the topic was subdivision burning and world deforestation - not a "Roxy" flame fest...

dperry

12-12-2004, 02:35

Well, a good way to start would be to recognize the AT for what it is and back it. Calling it a hiking place doesn't do that. Backing development of the corridor as being fair and reasonable doesn't.
Silly me, wherever did I get the idea that something called a "trail" was a hiking place?

Oh, yeah, I remember now!:clap

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/about/atc/index.html

"Our Mission

The Appalachian Trail Conference is a volunteer-based organization dedicated to the preservation and management of the natural, scenic, historic, and cultural resources associated with the Appalachian Trail, in order to provide primitive outdoor-recreation and educational opportunities for Trail visitors."

and

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/about/namechange.html

"Not only have we outgrown the name “Conference,” which originated in 1925 when the organization was primarily a coordinator of clubs, we've earned the right to proudly declare that we—all of us who work tirelessly to maintain the Trail's pristine 2,174 miles from Maine to Georgia—are focused on preserving America's premier HIKING experience for the next 80 years."

(all emphasis mine)

dperry

12-12-2004, 03:16

I mean, even thought we agree the house-burning was stupid and wrong, you completely ignored the other part of that first post that said, hey, just consider the fact that there was a total annihilation of life there -can't you see that it's not about "terrorism" and being anti-american? To say it again, there was already a breaking and entering and butchering and slaughtering. . .
Limiting use of natural resources is certainly all good and commendable, but I'm talking about appreciating the intrinsic rights and importance of nature . . .
Funny, I don't recall the trees calling the police, or the beavers filing papers, or the deer hiring lobbyists. Applying the concept of "rights" to non-sentient beings is a fairly empty exercise, I'm afraid.

Youngblood

12-12-2004, 09:19

weary

12-12-2004, 10:26

Oh, sure he has:

The at-l (with the exception of Weary) became bored with Roxy's act long ago. Roxy doesn't have the stones to post on Trailplace the way he does on the at-l, so he's decided to bring his one-trick-pony side show here to Whiteblaze. As I've said before, it's evident from his posts he has no intention of contributing positively to any of the forums he joins, his obvious intent is to be a negative influence. Perhaps one day, if he hikes on the AT and meets with actual members of the AT community, he'll clean up his act. Until then Whiteblazers will just have to put up with the stinking piles of horse manure Roxy's leaving behind along the Information Superhighway.
RnR is not the most skilled debater, but he does read what people post, which is more than his critics can bring themselves to do. RnR has told us several times that he has thru hiked the trail and worked as a trail maintainer and maintenance leader for years. TJ. If you have evidence this is wrong, say so. This would be a more constructive discussion if you could avoid making up alleged quotes and expressing falsehoods.

I happen to think that the debate over what MacKaye did or did not say in his initial Appalachian Trail proposal is beside the point. But having read the only biography of MacKaye, some the the letters MacKaye and Myron Avery exchanged, and numerous discussions of MacKaye's life, it is obvious to me that RnR is quite correct about what Mackaye came to believe.

My practice is to ignore as long as possible these squabbles. They remind me of third grade bullies on a school playground ganging up on a kid they sense may be vulnerable.

Weary

lobster

12-12-2004, 13:30

orangebug

12-12-2004, 14:09

The Patriots/Rebels did not attack private property of fellow Americans. They attacked the King's Army and government agencies. There was confiscation of Tory landholdings and propery, especially after Loyalists left the area to await the expected British Army victory. The complications of those property claims were part of the delay between Yorktown and the Treaty of Paris.

There were instances of destruction of property held by Patriots. The British Army was never as efficient as Gen Sherman. They got their point across which motivated Patriots toward violent actions directed at the King and his minions.

Remember, there has been no environmental group willing to take responsibility for these arsons. No environmentalists have endorsed these arsons, except for a few anonymous punks here. Johnny Appleseed didn't cut down trees - he created a resource. Arsonists who kept blacks "in their place" remain criminals long after their robes have rotted. Arsonists who destroyed rural black churches rot in prisons today.

Rationalization of criminal conduct based on a political agenda is still only rationalization.

TJ aka Teej

12-12-2004, 14:25

RnR is not the most skilled debater...
That's because he doesn't debate, Weary. To debate is to exchange questions and answers. Much like you, Roxy refuses to answer direct questions about the nonsense he posts.

RnR has told us several times that he has thru hiked the trail and worked as a trail maintainer and maintenance leader for years.
Unlike you, I'm not obsessed with reading all of Roxy's posts. I find them quite boring. I do know that he first came to my notice on years back on Wingy's ATML where he was asking confused beginner questions about the AMC's White Mountain hut system and Baxter Park. If he's hiked the A.T. since then, he apparently found easy Internet access along the Trail. Recently he added that Trail Maintainer icon to his Whiteblaze posts, and I asked him:

I notice you have the Trail Maintainer icon in your posts, Roxy. Care to share with us what maintaining club you've joined, and when and where you do your maintaining work? Must be a long trip for you from southern Florida. From your posts it's not clear if you've ever been on the Appalachian Trail at all, but if you really do work as a trail maintainer I hope that contact with the trail community benefits you in the future.
He didn't respond. But since you claim to have read every single post Roxy has ever made and commited them all to memory, perhaps you will share with us all you know about Roxy's "thruhike" and "trail maintaining".

I have tried asking Roxy questions. Here's several from a 2002 at-l post:

Think about it, R&R. Have you ever posted a trip report? No. A gear list? No. An introduction? No. A bio? No. Trail condition update? No. A book review? No. A Trail advocacy alert? No...
But how often do your posts refer to 'Wingfoot' or 'Trailplace'? Can't you
see how much of your world revolves around sitting at your keyboard typing
about how the at-l doesn't care about the Trail? Typing about how we are
beneath your standards of trail ethics? Typing about how great WF and TP
were? Typing about how you know more about MacKaye than any of us? Typing about how anyone who disagrees with you is doing so just because of 'personal reasons'? Can't you see?
One last question, R&R. If my opinion means so little to you, why have you
become obsessed with it?
He never responded, of course.

TJ aka Teej

12-12-2004, 14:32

This shouldn't read 'Originally posted by Weary', it should read that it was I who posted it as a response to a Roxy post:

Originally Posted by TJ aka Teej
I notice you have the Trail Maintainer icon in your posts, Roxy. Care to share with us what maintaining club you've joined, and when and where you do your maintaining work? Must be a long trip for you from southern Florida. From your posts it's not clear if you've ever been on the Appalachian Trail at all, but if you really do work as a trail maintainer I hope that contact with the trail community benefits you in the future

steve hiker

12-12-2004, 14:47

Funny, I don't recall the trees calling the police, or the beavers filing papers, or the deer hiring lobbyists. Applying the concept of "rights" to non-sentient beings is a fairly empty exercise, I'm afraid.
I assume you made a simple mistake. Sentient means having consciousness. Surely you don't mean that beavers and deer are not aware of the loss of their habitat.

They may not call the police or a lawyer when a logger bulldozes their forest, but they call Earth First! and Greenpeace. :D

whitedove

12-12-2004, 15:40

If enough people burned down these housing tracts in the backcountry(suburbia, you get the drift) that folks became deterred from building homes in these types of rural locations, do you believe that years down the road that these arsonists would be looked upon as folk heroes by a larger segment of the population?

I don't believe we look at the Patriots(Revolutionary War) as criminals?

If you were British as some on here appear to be then the answer would be yes.

If enough people would stand together in acts other than violence there would be no need to burn housing tracts and potentially murder individuals.

Rocks 'n Roots

12-12-2004, 15:46

Ah TJ, another round of well-reasoned Trail support from you. Your own record of trying to deny Wingfoot any credit while those with credible involvement strongly say otherwise - and your persistence even after Mr Leutze irrefutably confirmed what I was saying - are signs of dishonorable intentions. Where exactly did you show us where YOU had any credibility in making those accusations? You seem to have a long record of blundering in and being completely wrong - including attacking Weary for getting a land acquisition acreage figure wrong a few years back and then turning out to be completely wrong about that as well. Yet, this doesn't seem to affect your attacks or alter them in any way.

Take myself for instance. I worked with the NY/NJ Trail Conference for 10 years initiating projects and putting hundreds of hours in per year. We built Wildcat Shelter. From this TJ surmises that I've never even been to the Appalachian Trail. Somebody sounds reality-challenged here, sorry.

He also seems to be focused on attacking Warren Doyle and helped drive him off this site.

I simply don't have to prove myself to any gadflys. People who know the Trail will see the AT truth in what I write as Weary shows. Others have some kind of personal bent that disallows them no matter what they're shown. The reason I post what I post is because these people seem to be vying for an accepted place on the Trail. Worse than that, they seem to be trying to establish their ill-informed profile as the Trail norm. As if speaking about the Conservancy side was bad manners. Even when ATC sends the unavoidable message, they remain unaffected. As Weary says, the real culprits here are knowledgeable members who know this and say nothing. This norm allows people to ask "why should the AT need any more land?" without being challenged.

This shouldn't be used to draw meaningful AT discussions into personal attacks or cause board dislike for AT advocacy. The topic is deforestation and sprawl vs the AT's purpose. Not law enforcement as a means of avoiding this. I guess if you can't answer the points you attack the poster. I accept your humble apology TJ for mistaking my Trail involvement and credentials.

I hiked the AT south from Katahdin in August 1985 reaching Unionville, NJ in an ice storm in november. I went and got a worker job in a book warehouse for the winter and hiked back up to Unionville starting at Springer on March 23rd 1986. One of the highlights of my life that lead me to go join in physical trailwork. A hobby I found much more fulfilling than blindly attacking people who support the AT as some seem to prefer...

whitedove

12-12-2004, 16:15

Funny, I don't recall the trees calling the police, or the beavers filing papers, or the deer hiring lobbyists. Applying the concept of "rights" to non-sentient beings is a fairly empty exercise, I'm afraid.

I am not advocating violence and threats as a means to protect our Earth but I do agree that it NEEDS to be protected. They do have rights. Some of the best advice or insight I have ever heard came Chief Seattle.....

"All things share the same breath - the beast, the tree, the man... the air shares its spirit with all the life it supports. "

"Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect."

If more would realize we really are all connected this discussion would never be needed in the first place.

wacocelt

12-12-2004, 16:39

I apologize for not being able to respond as promptly as some, I have no internet access at the moment. The money that would be spent on frivolous things like that is being saved to pay my wife and I's way into Tracker School, which teaches the absolute basics and more for living in complete unison with our planet.
Now, as for the folks that have literally spammed this thread with support for the arsonists and insults for anyone who criticizes them, I may be a Red-Neck but I guarantee, when it comes down to it, I help more people in one day than you probably even think about in a year. I stop to help people changing a tire, EVERYTIME I see someone that I think needs help, I give rides to people I see walking in the rain, I loan money to complete strangers without worrying about being payed back.

Now, I may be mistaken, you could very well be in the running for Sainthood, though when you can't take off your blinders and accept the most simple of common sense that two wrongs do not equal a right, I find it hard to believe that you pull your head out of your ass for more than enough time to log on and insult people you know nothing about, for reasons that are absolute nonsense.

I don't believe in the Grid and it's inherent ills, but i'm not out endangering anyone to try and make my mark. My wife and I are doing what we can in the time we can to reintroduce ourselves into nature completely. You may call me a Red-Neck, but I'm doing something everyday to make things better, instead of driving a BMW from the suburbs out to protest whatever flavor of the month cause happens to be waving it's banner.

Your comments about lynch mobs are equally as ignorant. Most of the opinions I've read here state that IF they caught the person, they would deal with them then and there, which is completely different than say, getting a bunch of buddies together to firebomb empty houses. A bunch of patchouli smelling tree hugging hippies setting fire to houses is ABSOLUTELY no different than a bunch of bigots getting together to burn down a colored church when noone is in it. I bet you wouldn't be beating your chest and praising that type of 'terrorism would you?

Terrorism is terrorism, hate is hate, ignorance is ignorance. My passion causes me to heat up when I read crap like this and I vent, as I'm sure the majority of the arson supporters are, but we all need to realize that by contributing to the madness is still madness and very few people will open thier hearts and minds with scare tactics and force, thats what the governments and corporations that you so loathe do and it doesn't work for them.

Ahh well, I doubt anyone is even going to read this entire post, considering how long the thread is, but I feel a little better anyways, I hope you fine folks can do the same.

SGT Rock

12-12-2004, 16:46

Your comments about lynch mobs are equally as ignorant. Most of the opinions I've read here state that IF they caught the person, they would deal with them then and there, which is completely different than say, getting a bunch of buddies together to firebomb empty houses. A bunch of patchouli smelling tree hugging hippies setting fire to houses is ABSOLUTELY no different than a bunch of bigots getting together to burn down a colored church when noone is in it. I bet you wouldn't be beating your chest and praising that type of 'terrorism would you?

Terrorism is terrorism, hate is hate, ignorance is ignorance. My passion causes me to heat up when I read crap like this and I vent, as I'm sure the majority of the arson supporters are, but we all need to realize that by contributing to the madness is still madness and very few people will open thier hearts and minds with scare tactics and force, thats what the governments and corporations that you so loathe do and it doesn't work for them.

Right on!

Ahh well, I doubt anyone is even going to read this entire post, considering how long the thread is, but I feel a little better anyways, I hope
you fine folks can do the same.

If it makes you feel any better, I did.

wacocelt

12-12-2004, 16:59

Yes Rock, it does, Hooah! Be well all, I'm out for a few more days.

weary

12-12-2004, 17:14

If it makes you feel any better, I did.

As did I. I read posts that present a perspective based on reason and facts. I try to avoid those that simply seek to find excuses to criticize someone else.

Weary

whitedove

12-12-2004, 17:44

Ahh well, I doubt anyone is even going to read this entire post, considering how long the thread is, but I feel a little better anyways, I hope you fine folks can do the same.
I did also. Very good post! Thank you.

Blue Jay

12-12-2004, 17:56

Now, I may be mistaken, you could very well be in the running for Sainthood, ...Terrorism is terrorism, hate is hate, ignorance is ignorance. My passion causes me to heat up when I read crap like this and I vent, as I'm sure the majority of the arson supporters are, but we all need to realize that by contributing to the madness is still madness and very few people will open thier hearts and minds with scare tactics and force, thats what the governments and corporations that you so loathe do and it doesn't work for them.

Now I may be mistaken, but didn't you attack a thruhiker a few years ago?

Kim Clark

12-12-2004, 19:04

As did I. I read posts that present a perspective based on reason and facts. I try to avoid those that simply seek to find excuses to criticize someone else.

Wearyhttp://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?p=69850#post69850

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=69845

weary

12-12-2004, 20:43

"I knew you were going to say that! " ]

Kimmie. You are far to young to have a closed mind. Practice thinking.

Weary

Kim Clark

12-12-2004, 20:53

Kimmie. You are far to young to have a closed mind. Practice thinking.Weary just said my post was based on reason and facts! Thanks, grandpaw!

weary

12-12-2004, 21:21

Weary just said my post was based on reason and facts! Thanks, grandpaw!

You missed a word, Kim. I said I "TRY" to only open posts based on reason and facts. Given the nature of the media it's easy to slip up. But nevertheless thinking truly is a valuable thing to attempt.

Weary

Dances with Mice

12-12-2004, 21:31

You missed a word, Kim. I said I "TRY" to only open posts based on reason and facts. Given the nature of the media it's easy to slip up. But nevertheless thinking truly is a valuable thing to attempt.

That's not at all what you said. Thanks again!

steve hiker

12-12-2004, 22:01

But nevertheless thinking truly is a valuable thing to attempt.

But Weary, isn't that why we have the (politically corrected) media? To do our thinking for us? :-?

lobster

12-13-2004, 00:43

Weren't the houses in the process of being built? Were any occupied?

Rocks 'n Roots

12-13-2004, 02:16

A bunch of patchouli smelling tree hugging hippies setting fire to houses is ABSOLUTELY no different than a bunch of bigots getting together to burn down a colored church when noone is in it. I bet you wouldn't be beating your chest and praising that type of 'terrorism would you?

The people who did that probably feel they are striking back at a cold machine that won't give their concerns a second's notice. My main point in discussing their viewpoint is to show how an economic machine that pretty much intends to do the job on American open space over the next half century deals with this kind of matter. Our media is pretty much politicized and corrupted. Our economic program depends on a stable profile of people who pretty much buy into and don't question the fully-intended deforestation and destruction of a good percentage of our open space. This is simply progress and its interconnectedness with our economic system is undeniable. As a matter of fact, in a perverse way, sprawl equals progress and GNP fulfillment. Our nation measures itself on its economic strength. If you study our economy it is heavily dependent on continuous growth. That continuous growth is sprawl. Sprawl is now starting to take a toll on our environment and quality of life. The machine's answer to this is silent encouragement of more. Our system is geared towards growth and progress. Governments raise taxes and markets play for gains. The material form this takes is physical expansion of human impact. In short, continued destruction of natural areas equals economic goals fulfilled. Even shorter, our primitive system is a gigantic environmental Ponzi scam that is now starting to prove its value in terms of world decline. This scam is guarded by all of our powers that be, our highest forms of government, best minds, and self descriptions.

If this is allowed to progress to its end, the world won't end all at once. It will slowly become a place of very little environmental integrity with decreasing diversity and less quality of life due to lack of open space and resources. We're literally in a state of "future shock" because our outdated system has existed beyond earth's ability to sustain it. Sadly, and predictably, a regressive political movement is trying to solve this by forcing these outdated methods harder on a shrinking plane.

If they catch these guys they'll jail them and probably lobby for harsher punishments. Then they'll bury them. The media will never recognize or advertise their doings simply because that doesn't fit the economic game-plan or profile that has already planned to buy and sell what they are fighting to preserve. Maybe our homeland security will use new powers to enact measures against these groups labelling them a threat to our national security. Again, media coverage of this will be factual and matter of fact, short and then forgotten. Or maybe it will be wiser just to bury it all together. Their cause, however, will probably get no coverage or discussion as it didn't here in this thread.

As wrong as I know it is, I can't help but think of this in terms of deforestation without representation. Especially when allegedly law abiding people refuse to discuss the end game of earth-altering sprawl. To me that seems a much greater violation of human contracts. A much more insidious one.

The people who burned negro churches did it because they wanted to keep the old ways. Let the old machine purr along. There were a full set of laws to justify them. I wonder who the government will come down harder on and why?

Mountain Dew

12-13-2004, 02:27

Blue Wacko, "Now I may be mistaken, but didn't you attack a thruhiker a few years ago?" --- While correct you fail to recognize that he was punished for this and was very apologetic and sorry. I would go into all the good he did before that ever happened, but it would fall upon ignorant ears in your case Wacko.

Blue Jay

12-13-2004, 08:34

Thank you Hudson, your hypocricy continues to be infinite.

TJ aka Teej

12-13-2004, 09:08

I worked with the NY/NJ Trail Conference for 10 years initiating projects and putting hundreds of hours in per year. We built Wildcat Shelter. I hiked the AT south from Katahdin in August 1985 reaching Unionville, NJ in an ice storm in november. I ... hiked back up to Unionville starting at Springer on March 23rd 1986. A hobby I found much more fulfilling than blindly attacking people who support the AT as some seem to prefer...
Perhaps you need to renew that hobby and spend less time at the keyboard attacking people like me who oppose MacKaye-style windmills in Maine.

What I wrote to you over two years ago is [still] true -

Think about it, R&R. [go ahead, try...] Have you ever posted a trip report? No. A gear list? No. A bio? No. [still no, no, and no.] Trail condition update? No. [Still no.] A book review? No. [still no.] A Trail advocacy alert? No... [on a list created for Trail Advocacy, you never proposed a single project. And you still have not.]
But how often do your posts refer to 'Wingfoot' or 'Trailplace'? [See your last post] Can't you see how much of your world [still] revolves around sitting at your keyboard typing
about how the at-l [and now WhiteBlaze] doesn't care about the Trail? Typing about how we [and now WhiteBlaze members] are
beneath your standards of trail ethics? Typing about how great WF and TP
were? [now here on WhiteBlaze too] Typing about how you [still] know more about MacKaye than any of us? [now here on WhiteBlaze too] Typing about how anyone who disagrees with you is doing so just because of 'personal reasons'? [now here on WhiteBlaze too] Can't you see? [Apparently not...]
One last question, R&R. [yet to be answered] If my opinion [still] means so little to you, why have you become [and remain] obsessed with it? [to the extent of becoming nothing more than an Internet stalker?]

TJ aka Teej

12-13-2004, 09:21

Kimmie. You are far to young to have a closed mind.

Weary, at what age did you close your mind?

Puck

12-13-2004, 12:12

Lone Wolf

12-13-2004, 12:15

On and on the BS goes. 228 posts worth. Death to all hippy, terrorist felons. :cool:

steve hiker

12-13-2004, 12:43

Someone mentioned Chief Seattle's message to the U.S. Government when it demanded the Indians "sell" their land. The following is not Chief Seattle's original letter, since he made a speech in reply to the United States in 1854 and did not write a letter. His speech was first transcribed from memory in the 1870s, and later revised again with some dramatic license. However, the following probably captures the essense of what Chief Seattle said in his 1854 speech --

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)

steve hiker

12-13-2004, 12:55

If this is allowed to progress to its end, the world won't end all at once. It will slowly become a place of very little environmental integrity with decreasing diversity and less quality of life due to lack of open space and resources.
"Researchers of biodiversity agree that we are in the midst of the sixth mass extinction. Even if the current rate of habitat destruction were to continue in forest and coral reefs alone, half the species of plants and animals would be gone by the end of the 21st century. Our descendents would inherit a biologically impoverished and homogenized world."

"Not only would there be many fewer life forms, but also faunas and floras would look much the same over large parts of the world, with disaster species such as fire ants and rats widely spread. Humanity would then have to wait millions of years for natural evolution to replace what was lost in a single century."

--Time Magazine, May 2000 special edition

Tha Wookie

12-13-2004, 13:18

Steve,

Thanks for sharing that quote from Chief Seattle. Very moving.

Tim Rich

12-13-2004, 13:44

So has the investigation narrowed down any suspects? I did read a report on CNN stating that they suspect an environmental group. Obviously speculation and yellow journalism. Why did they not mention a subcontractor who was cheated, a disgruntled employee or a bunch of stupid teenagers? "liberal" "environmentalist" "terrorist" are buzzwords that got our attention but it is only speculation.
Does anyone have any facts?

Washington Post quote of Capt. Joseph Montminy of the Charles County Sheriff's Office: Montminy said investigators have not ruled out this motive. "The size of the crime is similar, and [ELF] has a history of doing arsons. We'd have to consider that," he said.

Yeah, the Post is full of folks looking to knock liberals and environmentalists... :confused:

The police are working the case, and they have plenty of leads right now, including matchbooks, rigged homes that didn't torch, and surveillance video of area gas stations looking to find people filling a large number of milk jugs and cooking oil bottles. By now, or soon, they probably know the brand of gasoline used, and can begin to focus a bit more on that. I don't know if the DC area requires a boutique blend of fuel this time of year, but that could narrow it down a bit more. The unburned jugs or bottles might also yield a lot number which could determine where they were purchased. From my layman's perspective, that's just a few things that could be used to find the criminals. I wish the investigators well.

Mags

12-13-2004, 14:26

Someone mentioned a letter Chief Seattle wrote to the president when the U.S. Government demanded the Indians "sell" their land. ...

While this speech is indeed moviing, it is an urban legend that Chief Seattle wrote it/said it.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/seattle.htm

To quote in part "The words Chief Seattle has become famous for were written by Ted Perry, the screenwriter for Home, a 1972 film about ecology. They have since been widely quoted in books, on TV, and from the pulpit. A children's book, Brother Eagle, Sister Sky: A Message From Chief Seattle, sold 280,000 within the first six months of its 1991 issue."

And a brief excerpt from the U of Washington:

"The speech given by Chief Seattle in January of 1854 is the subject of a great deal of historical debate. The most important fact to note is that there is NO VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT IN EXISTENCE. All known texts are second-hand."

And it goes on to say the various versions from over the years. The first version is from 1887. The one that everyone quotes is from 1971!

Again, from the U of Washington website:

"Version 3 is perhaps the most widely known of all. This version was written by Texas professor Ted Perry as part of a film script. The makers of the film took a little literary license, further changing the speech and making it into a letter to President Franklin Pierce, which has been frequently reprinted. No such letter was ever written by or for Chief Seattle.

[Version 3 begins: The Great Chief in Washington sends word that wishes to buy our land. The Great Chief also sends us words of friendship and goodwill. This is kind of him, since we know he has little need of our friendship in return. But we will consider your offer. For we know that if we do not sell, the white man may come with guns and take our land. How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us. ...] "

Version 4 appeared in an exhibit at Expo '74 in Spokane, Washington, and is a shortened edition of Dr. Perry's script (Version 3).

[Version 4 begins: The President in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land. Buy our land! But how can you buy or sell the sky? the land? The idea is strange to us. ...] ... "

Puck

12-13-2004, 14:40

Washington Post quote of Capt. Joseph Montminy of the Charles County Sheriff's Office: Montminy said investigators have not ruled out this motive. "The size of the crime is similar, and [ELF] has a history of doing arsons. We'd have to consider that," he said.

Yeah, the Post is full of folks looking to knock liberals and environmentalists... :confused:

The police are working the case, and they have plenty of leads right now, including matchbooks, rigged homes that didn't torch, and surveillance video of area gas stations looking to find people filling a large number of milk jugs and cooking oil bottles. By now, or soon, they probably know the brand of gasoline used, and can begin to focus a bit more on that. I don't know if the DC area requires a boutique blend of fuel this time of year, but that could narrow it down a bit more. The unburned jugs or bottles might also yield a lot number which could determine where they were purchased. From my layman's perspective, that's just a few things that could be used to find the criminals. I wish the investigators well.
Thanks for the reply. I have also read that racism may be a motive. I suspect that arrests or a man hunt will be underway in a few days. I have not heard much about ELF (Earth Liberation Front) they seem to be anarchist.

If this was truely an act of civil disobedience to protect the magnaolia swamp habitat then they are a bit late....the trees are cutdown, the land is excavated, asphalt poured, the sewer, water, gas, electricity lines are in. The destruction is done. I would guess that true monkey wrenching would have occured much sooner.

steve hiker

12-13-2004, 15:21

And a brief excerpt from the U of Washington:

"The speech given by Chief Seattle in January of 1854 is the subject of a great deal of historical debate. The most important fact to note is that there is NO VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT IN EXISTENCE. All known texts are second-hand."

And it goes on to say the various versions from over the years. The first version is from 1887. The one that everyone quotes is from 1971!
Mags --

Maybe there is no verbatim transcript because Chief Seattle spoke it, and his words were translated by assistants of the Great White Father. Nitpicking aside, the message is very moving and relevant to our times.

I also note that the corporate establishment is very active in "debunking" messages they find threatening. This debunking of the words (or at least, the near words) of Chief Seattle is an example.

Another example of corporate debunking concerns a documentary on the effects of Chernobyl on the surrounding communities, by an amatuer photographer in the Ukraine last year. The presentation appeared on the net because she couldn't finance a U.S. style presentation. The corporate mouthpiece L.A. Times then recklessly "debunked" it, asserting she hadn't even been in the reactor area. Turns out the Times debunking was based on a simple misunderstanding when her server went down for a few weeks.

But again, the authenticity of the letter is a red herring. The message is important.

Mags

12-13-2004, 15:43

Maybe there is no verbatim transcript because Chief Seattle spoke it, and his words were translated by assistants of the Great White Father. Nitpicking aside, the message is very moving and relevant to our times.

It is also faked from a 1971 movie script! Hardly nitpicking!

The "original" was written down in the 1870s..a good 30 yrs after Chief Seattle said his speed. I sincerely doubt that the American Victorian era speech was what Chief Seattle said. Much less a 1971 movie script!

I just detest urban legends becoming "fact".

[/QUOTE]I also note that the corporate establishment is very active in "debunking" messages they find threatening. This debunking of the words (or at least, the near words) of Chief Seattle is an example. [/QUOTE]

Snopes is hardly a corporate website. They debunk all matters of urban legends. I doubt the U of Washington is considred corporate as well.

Also hardly his "near words". The speech the 1971 MOVIE script is based on words written 30+ years after the speech by a person who did not even speak the language fluently! This same person who transcribed the speech (Again 30 years afterwards) has also been known to "improve" speeces. So we have
a) speech that may or may not have been said
b) a doctored speech written down by the non-fluent transcribe 30 yrs later
c) A speech commonly accepted as fact written for a movie 100 yrs after the first mis-translated speech.

>>But again, the authenticity of the letter is a red herring. The message is important.

Sorry, but I don't agree with that statement. If you are going to quote something and say that is a nice sentiment, fine. But my background is history. Urban legends, false history that that we regard as true, etc. is something I do not care for. If we start accepting false history as true then we are down a slippery slope. I don't care which side of the spectrum you are on.

If you want 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".

(As a side note: I've been bashed by liberals as too corporate. Conservatives call me a bleeding heart. Geez..make up your mind people. :)

weary

12-13-2004, 16:11

Weary, at what age did you close your mind?
Well, I don't think I have, but that is something that others can better judge than those with closed minds. What makes you think I have a closed mind, TJ?

Weary

steve hiker

12-13-2004, 16:24

The "original" was written down in the 1870s..a good 30 yrs after Chief Seattle said his speed. I sincerely doubt that the American Victorian era speech was what Chief Seattle said. Mags --

If Chief Seattle made his speech in 1854 and it was first written down (from memory) in the 1870s, haven't you made a math error? Yes, by a mile. Thus, I declare you unworthy of credit in any future discussion on this topic.

Just kidding Mags. But this type of knitpicking, along with yours, detracts from the message. That is the goal of debunkers -- find some technical point to argue, and hope to thereby discredit the entire message/report/study etc.

It is undisputed that Chief Seattle made a speech on this topic in 1854. The letter probably captures the essense of what he said, even if dramatic license was taken with the translations.

More to the point Mags, are you upset only on technical grounds, or do you have a beef with the pro-environmental sentiment in the letter?

Puck

12-13-2004, 16:52

Sorry, but I don't agree with that statement. If you are going to quote something and say that is a nice sentiment, fine. But my background is history. Urban legends, false history that that we regard as true, etc. is something I do not care for. If we start accepting false history as true then we are down a slippery slope. I don't care which side of the spectrum you are on.
I was also a history major. The way history is written is also history. The role of history often times is to construct an identiy based on the past. Don't confuse 'em with the facts. So the speeches, stories and lore have thier base in facts but need to extend far beyond to reach whatever purpose. So the reality of facts behind Chief Seatle's speech , the Reserection of Christ or Washington crossing the Deleware is irrelevent. It is the common sentiment and collective identity behind these events that define an environemental movement, religion, or national identity. So any argument over who said what and when or if it really happened is irrelavent because the train has already left the station.

Tim Rich

12-13-2004, 16:52

Mags --

If Chief Seattle made his speech in 1854 and it was first written down (from memory) in the 1870s, haven't you made a math error? Yes, by a mile. Thus, I declare you unworthy of credit in any future discussion on this topic.

Just kidding Mags. But this type of knitpicking, along with yours, detracts from the message. That is the goal of debunkers -- find some technical point to argue, and hope to thereby discredit the entire message/report/study etc.

It is undisputed that Chief Seattle made a speech on this topic in 1854. The letter probably captures the essense of what he said, even if dramatic license was taken with the translations.

Debunking websites, such as Snopes, don't look at technicalities, but outright false assumptions. Based on the statements contained on that site, it *doesn't* capture the essence of the speech, and it's filled with enough impossibilities to render it fiction. Following Mags' link shows that any fact here is just wishful thinking:

"Chief Seattle is probably our greatest manufactured prophet," said David Buerge, a Northwest historian. The real Chief Seattle did give a speech in 1854, but he never said "The earth is our mother." Nor did he say "I have seen a thousand rotting buffaloes on the prairie, left by the white man who shot them from a passing train." There were no bison within 600 miles of the chief's home on Puget Sound in the Pacific Northwest, and trains to the West were years away.

The words Chief Seattle has become famous for were written by Ted Perry, the screenwriter for Home, a 1972 film about ecology. They have since been widely quoted in books, on TV, and from the pulpit. A children's book, Brother Eagle, Sister Sky: A Message From Chief Seattle, sold 280,000 within the first six months of its 1991 issue.

By most accounts, Chief Seattle was a great speaker and skilled diplomat. He was born in 1786, and his real name in the Lushootseed language was See-ahth. Whites found it nearly impossible to pronounce.

Seattle was also a warrior with a considerable reputation for daring raids on other Indian tribes. After smallpox wiped out many of his people, he realized the inevitablity of the coming tide of white settlement. In 1854 he made a speech to more than a thousand of his people gathered to greet the Government's Indian superintendent, Isaac Stevens. Most historians agree that the speech was delivered in the Salish dialect. A year later, the chief signed a treaty with the United States Government, ceding much of the area on which the city of Seattle now stands.

There is only one record of what Chief Seattle did say in 1854, a translation of the chief's speech done by Dr. Henry Smith who published his recollection in 1887 — 33 years after it was given. According to Smith, Seattle merely praised the generosity of the President in buying his land.

Tim Rich

12-13-2004, 16:54

*snipped* So any argument over who said what and when or if it really happened is irrelavent because the train has already left the station.

In 1854, no train had left the station headed west...

Mags

12-13-2004, 17:00

[QUOTE=s

More to the point Mags, are you upset only on technical grounds, or do you have a beef with the pro-environmental sentiment in the letter?[/QUOTE]

I am not upset, only take offense that in today's society we have of taking fabrications as truth. Lack of skepticism leads to people believing in astrology, things our govt says, and propogranda from various agencies. Rather Orwellian to say it is not the facts that matter..eh?

Really, it not nitpicking to say that you should not quote a movie script as factual.

As I said, if you want 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".

Jack Tarlin

12-13-2004, 17:50

Mags has made a perfectly legitimate point, which is this: If you're going to use an historical event, personage, document, speech, etc. to buttress a present-day argument, then it's incumbent upon one to make sure they get their facts straight.

This lengthy thread has seen any manner of historical errors in recent days, i.e. the declaration that the U.S. was the last slave-holding nation, or the remarkable statement that "The Patriots/Rebels did not attack the private property of fellow Americans...." when in fact this happened frequently, especially during the Carolina campaigns.

It is also an extraordinarily weak debating point to essentially say "Well, even if the history is cloudy or questionable, the message more than makes up for it."

Wrong. However good the message, if you're going to invoke history or past events in order to score points in a modern argument, then it's really important to get your facts straight:

An argument that relies on "evidence" or support that is doubtful, incomplete, or provably false, is an argument that is inevitably compromised. A good quote can absolutely support a debating point; a bad quote, i.e. an innaccurate, mis-interpreted, or outright false one does not serve to stregthen anyone's agrument; in fact, it does the exact opposite.

The point Mags and others have made in the de-bunking of the Chief Seattle quote is an excellent one: If you're gonna use history or past events to back up your statements in the present day, then make sure you've got your facts right before sharing them here.

Alligator

12-13-2004, 18:07

A well crafted thousandth post there Jack.

orangebug

12-13-2004, 18:11

... or the remarkable statement that "The Patriots/Rebels did not attack the private property of fellow Americans...." when in fact this happened frequently, especially during the Carolina campaigns....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."

In Gilbert Town, there was disappointment that Ferguson had left, and there were reprisals against Loyalists who had imprisoned, tortured and pillaged rebels' homes and families. However, many of these Loyalists remained in Western NC long after the battles and the war, remaining active in government and society. After visiting Gilbert Town, the Overmountain Men wiped out the Tory army of Ferguson at King's Mountain. Subsequently, Gen. Daniel Morgan's men defeated Tarleton at Cowpens, a fight engaged prematurely by the Brits in fear of a return of reinforcements by the Overmountain Men.

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 also continue to be amazed at others willing to jump at the conclusion that the Maryland arsons were committed by eco-terrorists.