nootie's 'environmentalist' blooper
Hanson
WellWell <hir...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Jim Hightower - April 17, 1996:
>
> Years ago a guy ran for Congress in California and was
defeated, and he did
> not take it well. He said to the press: "The people have
spoken -- the
> bastards."
>
> This has to be what our Loudspeaker of the House, Newt
Gingrich, is thinking
> these days as he looks at the political mess he has made
for himself and the
> Republican Party over environmental issues.
>
> Fueled by his own ego and a gusher of campaign money from
big-time polluters,
> Newt and his Republican-controlled Congress have done a
gut-job on the
> environmental laws that stand between even worse
industrial pollution . . .
> and us. It's our air, water, land, food and families they
are attacking.
>
> Apparently, these goofuses actually expected the applause
of a grateful
> public, but instead folks are appalled at what they are
trying to do to us.
> After a year of the GOP's attempts to dismantle the
Environmental Protection
> Agency, for example, a Harris poll now finds that 86
percent of us Americans
> believe an aggressive EPA is needed as much or more today
than when it was
> created 25 years ago. More stunning to Newt & Gang is that
76 percent of
> Republicans feel this way.
>
> Indeed, Republican pollster Linda DiVall recently reported
to her GOP
> congressional clients that [quote] "55 percent of
Republicans do not trust
> their party when it comes to protecting the environment,"
adding that their
> assault on America's anti-pollution laws has put the GOP
"out of
> sync with mainstream American opinion."
>
>Sorry, nootie. There are more tree-huggers than you thought
there were.
>
>HR
>
> So, are Republican congressional leaders backing off? Of
course not --
> they've been bought and paid for by the polluters.
Instead, they are
> advising GOP members to visit zoos and particiapte in tree
plantings
> back home to try to boost their enviromental image.
>
>This is Jim Hightower saying to Newt . . . It's not nice to
fool with Mother
>Nature, or to try fooling the people.
Great post!
Gotta watch out for those "envirowhackos." Some of them are
Republican!
RH
Synergy
>Gingrich, is thinking
>> these days as he looks at the political mess he has made
>for himself and the
>> Republican Party over environmental issues.
House Speaker Newt Gingrich has taken very rational positions on
environmental issues, unlike the wacko in the White House.
Gingrich cares about people and is doing what he can to prevent
friends of the Unabomber's from dictating environmental policy
in the U.S. Unlike Clintoon and the Gorebot, Gingrich puts
the wellbeing of people first!
--
<sig>
"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is
the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- William Pitt
"The power to tax involves the power to destroy." -- John Marshall
Annoy a Fascist: Just Say No to Gun Control! Annoy a Leftist: Think!
The Public School System: You can get better, but you can't pay more.
</sig>
Mike Conway
> environmental issues, unlike the wacko in the White House.
Gingrich has presided over the most anti-environmental congress in
history. The 104th has attempted to undo EVERY law ever put in place to
protect health and the environment, and has made every attempt to allow
extractive industries to run rampant over our environment with no regard
to common sense or the taxpayer's expense.
I'd be happy to go over it bill by bill if you like...
lets get over this unibomber thing....its really not relevant if you are
interested in talking about issues vs. just talking...
BluLu 2
Gingrich puts the well-being of corporations first, period.
He has allowed corporate representatives to have a hand
in forming environmental legislation, which leans in their
favor, of course. Oh, and this has nothing to do with the
hundreds of thousands of dollars of contributions favored
to the GOP from those same corporations .... nah .....
BluLu 2
Synergy
>> House Speaker Newt Gingrich has taken very rational positions on
>> environmental issues, unlike the wacko in the White House.
>Gingrich has presided over the most anti-environmental congress in
>history. The 104th has attempted to undo EVERY law ever put in place to
>protect health and the environment, and has made every attempt to allow
>extractive industries to run rampant over our environment with no regard
>to common sense or the taxpayer's expense.
You friends of the UnaBomber's are all eco-fascists. You should
be thrown in prison before you hurt innocent people.
Hanson
syn...@MCS.COM (Synergy) wrote:
>>> This has to be what our Loudspeaker of the House, Newt
>>Gingrich, is thinking
>>> these days as he looks at the political mess he has made
>>for himself and the
>>> Republican Party over environmental issues.
>
positions on
>environmental issues, unlike the wacko in the White House.
prevent
>friends of the Unabomber's from dictating environmental
policy
>the wellbeing of people first!
By having the corporations write all his environmental
legislation.
By attempting to roll back all the environmental legislation
passed since Nixon.
By defunding the EPA.
Right! Thanks to the Sociopath of the House we can look
forward to having to reconstruct all the advances we made in
environmental protection in the last twenty years after we've
chased the contract crazies out of the House.
RH
John Nahay
: be thrown in prison before you hurt innocent people.
anti-sex fanatic who wants to blow up the internet, like his anti-porn
friends, because he doesn't like the lack of "morals" being spread around
on it.
You anti-environmental fascists should be given life sentences before you
murder millions by giving everyone UV-induced skin cancer.
Derek Estey
>
> > House Speaker Newt Gingrich has taken very rational positions on
> > environmental issues, unlike the wacko in the White House.
>
> history. The 104th has attempted to undo EVERY law ever put in place to
> protect health and the environment, and has made every attempt to allow
> extractive industries to run rampant over our environment with no regard
> to common sense or the taxpayer's expense.
>
>
> lets get over this unibomber thing....its really not relevant if you are
> interested in talking about issues vs. just talking...
yes, please do go over the bills one by one.
Hanson
syn...@MCS.COM (Synergy) wrote:
>Mike Conway <mcc....@mhs.adp.unc.edu> writes:
>
>>> House Speaker Newt Gingrich has taken very rational
positions on
>>> environmental issues, unlike the wacko in the White
House.
>
>>Gingrich has presided over the most anti-environmental
congress in
>>history. The 104th has attempted to undo EVERY law ever
put in place to
>>protect health and the environment, and has made every
attempt to allow
>>extractive industries to run rampant over our environment
with no regard
>>to common sense or the taxpayer's expense.
>
should
>be thrown in prison before you hurt innocent people.
>
1. According to the unibomber's own words, he's no friend to
the left, and speaking from the left, I can say there are no
friends for him here.
2. It's because of the kind of Hatespeak you're indulging in
above that violence is going to be growing on the political
horizon.
Nice job of pouring gasoline on the fire, moron.
RH
Dan Thornsberry
is to baby sitting. Nooty would never support any
bill without first having his palm crossed.
--
Find the REAL quotes:
"America, love it or leave it" - The Old Right
"America, blow it up" - The Newt Reich
"I am the GOP" - Timothy McVeigh
"Send us your insane, your violent, your racist" - Statue of Montana
"Give any senile old fool a credit card and he can
give you the illusion of prosperity" - Ronald Reagan
"Mommie, did the astrologer OK the press conference?" R. Reagan
"I might not be good enough for the US, but I'm
still good enough for Texas" - Phil Gramm
"The guvermint spens two much on edjication" - The GOP
"Come here little girl, I have something for you" - D. Koresh
"I am the NRA" - Timothy McVeigh
"I am personally responsible for beginning 80% of
all conversations in the US." - Rush limbaugh
"OK son, If you see anyone coming, blast away" - R. Weaver
"Is the cash in the envelope?" - Newt Gingrich
"Yes sir, Mr. Gambino" - Alfonse D'Amato
"Yes sir, Mr. D'Amato" - Kenneth Starr
"When your fans are idiots, facts don't matter" - Rush Limbaugh
"Elect me because I'm too old to try later" - Bob Dole
"Yassuh Boss" - Clarence Thomas
============================================================
| | The GOP wants more guns |
| Dan Thornsberry | |
|tbe...@computek.net | and less education!!! |
| | |
============================================================
The victors called the revolution a triumph of liberty;
but now and then liberty, in the slogans of the strong,
means freedom from restraint in the exploitation of the
weak. -Will Durant
Hanson
na...@pluto.njcc.com (John Nahay) wrote:
>: You friends of the UnaBomber's are all eco-fascists. You
>: be thrown in prison before you hurt innocent people.
He's some
>anti-sex fanatic who wants to blow up the internet, like his
anti-porn
>friends, because he doesn't like the lack of "morals" being
spread around
>on it.
>
>You anti-environmental fascists should be given life
sentences before you
>murder millions by giving everyone UV-induced skin cancer.
>
Imagine having to get all your original ideas from Rush
Limbaugh.
A fate worse than death.
RH
Frank Pittel
Mike Conway (mcc....@mhs.adp.unc.edu) wrote:
: > House Speaker Newt Gingrich has taken very rational positions on
: > environmental issues, unlike the wacko in the White House.
: Gingrich has presided over the most anti-environmental congress in
: history. The 104th has attempted to undo EVERY law ever put in place to
: protect health and the environment, and has made every attempt to allow
: extractive industries to run rampant over our environment with no regard
: to common sense or the taxpayer's expense.
The sad part of the above statement is that you actually believe the
above statement.
: I'd be happy to go over it bill by bill if you like...
: lets get over this unibomber thing....its really not relevant if you are
: interested in talking about issues vs. just talking...
Of course it's not relevent. It makes the left look bad so we'll just
ignore it and get onto something else more important. Like make the
right look bad.
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
Frank Pittel
WellWell (hir...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote:
: >
: > : > House Speaker Newt Gingrich has taken very rational positions on
: > : > environmental issues, unlike the wacko in the White House.
: >
: > : Gingrich has presided over the most anti-environmental congress in
: > : history. The 104th has attempted to undo EVERY law ever put in place to
: > : protect health and the environment, and has made every attempt to allow
: > : extractive industries to run rampant over our environment with no regard
: > : to common sense or the taxpayer's expense.
: >
: > The sad part of the above statement is that you actually believe the
: > above statement.
: >
I'm still waiting for proof to the initial assertion. Of course since
the original asssertion is nothing more then the fabrication of the
DNC I'm not holding my breath waiting for the proof.
Mike Conway
> I'm still waiting for proof to the initial assertion. Of course since
> the original asssertion is nothing more then the fabrication of the
> DNC I'm not holding my breath waiting for the proof.
> --
-Gutting of the Clean Water Act - this is a whole thread in itself.
-Oil drilling an ANWR: Congress attempted to insert language into the budget allowing for oil drilling in the wildlife refuge.
This is one of the most environmentally sensitive areas in the US. It was placed in the budget bill with such language
because previous attempts (Reagan) to open it were defeated. This is the only 125 miles of the Alaskan coastline not
open to drilling, and the Alaskan delegation admitted that the state plans on suing to get 90 percent of the revenue (there
MAY be 30 days worth of oil here).
-Removing protection of National Wildlife Refuges - (HR 1675) Promotes development, grazing, toxic pesticide use etc in wildlife refuges,
prevents aquisition of new refuge land.
-Elimination of Central Valley Project Improvement Act(HR 2738) - Central Valley Project provides subsidized water for
the ag industry in California through diversions of Searra Nevada water. The improvement act restored some of that flow for wetlands and
salmon fisheries. HR 2738 ends that restoration, as well as authorizes 18 new federal subsidy projects.
-Elimination of the Endangered Species Act - (HR2275)Lead by Richard Pombo in the house (who was called on the Lehrer news hour for fabricating
stories of 'kit fox' habitat on his ranch) and Slade Gorton (embarrassed by a leak of a memo acknowledging receipt of his s768 from
timber and other industry representatives). These bills do away with endangered species protection and leave an empty shell of an
act. This would be a thread all to itself, I'd be glad to take it up.
-Prohibition on protection of wildlife in National Forests - (HR2542) A rider that was put on the farm bill by Wayne Allard that
prohibited the USFS from implementing "...any management plan practice, policy, project, or guideline for lands within the
National Forest System if the purpose of the amendment is to maintain a viable population of a native species or desired
non-native species...". This goes hand and hand with Pombo, which says that federal projects dont need to consider impact
on species or bio-diversity.
-Elimination of NBS - this is a research organization under the Dept. of Interior that conducts scientific reasearch and inventory of
bio-diversity in the US. Congess is attempting to eliminate it. This is part of a larger anti-science movement in congress, where it
seems to be better not to know. Another example is the attempt to suppress reasearch findings from a study of the impacts of
development and timber activity in the columbia river basin.
-Elimination of Mojave National Preserve - Rider to Interior Appropriations (there have been MANY MANY riders, which I will cover
in a later post, there's not enough room or time today to hit it all). Rep. Jerry Lewis is attempting to open this 1.4 million
acre preserve up to mining and development by transferring it to the BLM.
-Blocking wilderness in Voyageurs NP - (HR 1310). Speaks for itself.
-Preventing concessions reform in National Parks - (HR2808). Continues sweetheart deals for NP concessions to companies such
as Aramark, who in 1993 only paid the Treasury 3.4% of its 95.4 million revenue from NP. Removes limits on prices for these
concessions. Park Service Dir. Roger kennedy called it "an absolute steal and a license to do so".
-New World Mine in yellowstone - Rider to Interior Approp allows open pit mining by Crown Butte 2 miles ne of Yellowstone in
the heart of its watershed.
-Gorton Timber Rider - rider to recisions. A timber industry grab that allows logging in the last old growth in the northwest,
suspends all environmental laws, and prevents public input and litigation. This is expected to cost taxpayers $200 million dollars
and the legislation explicitly says that the logging does not have to be financially beneficial to the taxpayers. This 'salvage'
logging was sold as a cure for forest 'health', although it has been resoundingly denounced by the scientific community. What
has happened is that industry has used it to go in and cut 'green' trees (not salvage) that had previously been protected because
they provide habitat for endangered species and preserve watershed for salmon runs.
-Tongass Logging - rider to interior. Continue sweetheart deals given to timber industry in the largest of our national
forests. From 1992-1994 this logging cost taxpayers $102 milion (GAO). This bill increases subsidized logging at far beyond
sustainable rates and bars legal challanges, blocks USFS from protecting fish and wildlife habitat, and overturns a fed appeals
ruling that such logging violates environmental laws and violates native american's subsistance righs.
-Clearwater Logging - interior rider. overrule fed court ruling that Idaho's clearwater forest plan must manage this forest with
the health of the forest as the highest priority.
-Utah Wilderness Bill - (HR1745) designates 1.8 million out of 22 million acres of BLM wilderness as wilderness, and then goes
on to redefine wilderness as open to mining and development...ALL WILDERNESS..also includes "hard release" language that prevents
any further designation of any of the 22 million as wilderness.
-Public Lands Givaways - Gives away publicly owned lands owned by every citizen of this country to states, allowing them to open them
all up for development and mining.
-Blocking of land aquisition using the land and water conservation fund - this fund gets $900 million in royalties from gas and oil, which
was set up in 1965 to use these offsets to aquire public lands for conservation and preservation (ie out of the hands of developers).
This money has been cut since the Reagan administration.
-Grazing - Taxpayer subsidies of grazing cost taxpayers $20 milion (CBO) to $500 million (cato inst) per year. These lands are severely
degraded by the grazing (blm says 2/3 of all fed rangeland have been severely degraded). Dominici's legislation basically hands these
lands over to ranchers and prevents public participation, hands water rights on fed land to ranchers, and perpetuates subsidies to
wealthy rancers.
-Opening roads through nat parks and wilderness - HR2081
-Columbia Basin Rider - Clinton had Interior come up with an assessment of USFS and BLM land in the Columbia river basin and
create a plan that promoted sound management. This Interior rider would exempt timber sales from ESA consultation and
bar adoption of any management plan.
-Takings - S605 - This entitlement bill would require taxpayers to pay polluting industries to obey the law. For instance, in NC,
due to the problems with hog waste killing the Neuse river, a clean water requirement of 50 foot vegitative buffers along rivers
and streams to protect the river would be a 'taking'. Regulations preventing somebody from polluting your groundwater would be a
taking....previnting a hazardous waste incinerator from going up in your backyard would contitute a 'taking'. get the picture?
-Perpetuating the mining act of 1872 - Allows excavation of minerals from federal land with no royalties and at ridiculous prices.
Companies can by land held by taxpayers for as little as 2.50 an acre, take billions of dollars worth of minerals out, and not
pay a penny to the treasury. Reform has been blocked by this congress.
-Removal of wetlands Protection - (S581) - companion to 'clean water reauthorization' that removes protection for 70-85% of wetlands in
each state (Army Corps of Engineers).
I can and will go on and on, but this seems like a good starting place......I have not really touched on most of the appropriations
moves, which are rife with anti-environmental riders, resource give-aways, and special interest loopholes, stuff like blocking public
access to info on toxics being released in their own backyards, etc. I'll repeat..this has been the most anti-environmental congress ever, and
while they are attemting now to greenwash themselves, the record speaks for itself. there have been move lcv 'zeros' in this congress
then at any time since that index was started.
I will continue this thread later, but lunch break is over. I'd be glad to go deeper into any of this though. This is too important....
D. Braun
On Sun, 5 May 1996, Frank Pittel wrote:
> WellWell (hir...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : Frank Pittel wrote:
> : >
> : > Mike Conway (mcc....@mhs.adp.unc.edu) wrote:
> : > : > House Speaker Newt Gingrich has taken very rational positions on
> : > : > environmental issues, unlike the wacko in the White House.
> : >
> : > : Gingrich has presided over the most anti-environmental congress in
> : > : history. The 104th has attempted to undo EVERY law ever put in place to
> : > : protect health and the environment, and has made every attempt to allow
> : > : extractive industries to run rampant over our environment with no regard
> : > : to common sense or the taxpayer's expense.
> : >
> : > The sad part of the above statement is that you actually believe the
> : > above statement.
> : >
> : Oh, really? And what are your specifics to rebut what the gentleman said?
>
> I'm still waiting for proof to the initial assertion. Of course since
> the original asssertion is nothing more then the fabrication of the
> DNC I'm not holding my breath waiting for the proof.
> --
Why wait for the DNC? Read the Congressional Record for versions of budget
bills that contained the "anti-environment riders", and other proposed
laws and limitations on funding, and judge for your
self; easier still, read the last few copies of the NRDC Amicus Journal;
they list them. If these following proposals are reasonable, than it is
true that the "War on the Environment" is a fabrication:
Reduce Jack Ward Thomas'(USFS Chief) pay to $1;
Fund the new Mohave National Park for $1;
prevent the EPA from issuing new regs on pollutants in water, including lead;
prevent the EPA from issuing rules on wetlands;
force public money to be used for payment on "property rights
enfringement", where a law prevents someone from engaging in an
environmentally destructive, prohibited activity;
defund the National Biological Service, which through biological
investigations, is in the process of attempting to keep species off the
endangered species list;
rewrite the Endangered Species Act, so that a
political apointee, not a team of scientists, decides which species will
be listed, and force all species to pass a cost benefit test--- even the
the "worth" of the majority of species is unknown;
freeze all listings of endangered or threatened species;
the salvage rider (an admitted mistake by
Clinton), which suspends all environmental law on FS and BLM timber
sales--- two subsequent decisions by courts said that all sales, cancelled
for whatever reason, must be released---in some cases, buyers get huge
windfall profits, and sales are in areas so significant for habitat
and ecosystem functioning that forest scientists and
biologists agree they will be needlessly destructive when logged, and
have far higher value if left standing;
the proposed Craig Bill, which would intensify salvage logging, and lead to
the destruction of most of the last roadless wilderness that is
unprotected, under the guise of cutting the
forest to save it---- even though many forest ecologists agree that this
will not increase forest health---- the bill in at least one version also
reguired salvage sales to be cut even if they lost money in comparing the
costs of preparing the sale vs. timber receipts (and did not include the
cost of counting environmental impacts);
a proposal to freeze funding for the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem
Management Project, which is mostly done and would guide management over this
huge watershed---- it was feared that recomendations might call for decreased
grazing, logging, and increased environmental restoration---- and disavow any
information gathered to date, regarding applicable new laws and regulations;
greatly increased logging in the Tongas NF in
Alaska;
attempts to sell off varying amounts of National Parks or other
Public Land;
opening up National Wildlife Refuges for more development;
a Utah wilderness bill far smaller than potential lands warrant, and with
special uses written in including oil and gas development, power lines,
and roads, with hard release for all the rest of the wilderness lands---
these uses would subvert the intent of the Wilderness Act to date;
a freeze on acquisition of new public land--- including inholdings in
National Parks and Wilderness, which are gradually being developed and
becoming more expensive, year by year, to buy.
This is only what I can remember off the top of my head in a few minutes.
I guess you don't read books, newspapers, watch TV, listen to radio, walk
outside your house or even look out the window.
Dave Braun
Dan Thornsberry
Newt in charge of the environment.
David Koresh (after he rises) in charge of child care.
Jim Bakker in charge of the new official US religion.
GOP mecca.
--
-------------------------------------------------------
Wanted - Any person willing to lie to a jury. No
experience necessary. It would be beneficial if the
applicant had an intense hatred of the Clintons. All
interested parties should contact Mr. Kenneth Starr
through the Dole campaign office. If Mr. Starr is
unavailable, you can contact any New Jersey numbers
runner and the message will be passed on to Senator
D'Amato.
-------------------------------------------------------
Star witness - A person who will enhance your position
when they testify.
Starr witness - A person you hire to perjure themselves.
Libruul - A person smarter than yourself.
Commie - A libruul who has traveled outside of Georgia.
NRA life member - A person whose father is also their
grandfather.
Dittohead - A person who decides thinking is just too
strenuous.
Libertarian - Member of an elite group of 14,000. Would
be much higher if ex-cons could vote.
John Birchers - Would be Libertarians if they could vote.
--------------------------------------------------------
# 1 militiaman problem:
Government intrusion into their lives.
# 2 militiaman problem:
Cockroach infestation of their homes.
==========================================================
| | The GOP wants more guns |
| Dan Thornsberry | |
|tbe...@computek.net | and less education!!! |
| | |
|==========================================================|
| The victors called the revolution a triumph of liberty; |
| but now and then liberty, in the slogans of the strong, |
| means freedom from restraint in the exploitation of the |
| weak. -Will Durant |
==========================================================
Joke of the week:
-
Q. Why are there no altar girls?
A. Because 9 out of 10 priests prefer little boys.
------------------------------------------------------------
"America, love it or leave it" - The Old Right
"America, blow it up" - The Newt Reich
"I am the GOP" - Timothy McVeigh
"Send us your insane, your violent, your racist" - Statue of Montana
"Give any senile old fool a credit card and he can
give you the illusion of prosperity" - Ronald Reagan
"Mommie, did the astrologer OK the press conference?" R. Reagan
"I might not be good enough for the US, but I'm
still good enough for Texas" - Phil Gramm
"The guvermint spens two much on edjication" - The GOP
"Come here little girl, I have something for you" - D. Koresh
"I am the NRA" - Timothy McVeigh
smokey williams
05.56299...@homer17.u.washington.edu>
Distribution:
D. Braun (dbr...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
: > --
: Why wait for the DNC? Read the Congressional Record for versions of budget
: bills that contained the "anti-environment riders", and other proposed
: laws and limitations on funding, and judge for your
: self; easier still, read the last few copies of the NRDC Amicus Journal;
: they list them. If these following proposals are reasonable, than it is
: true that the "War on the Environment" is a fabrication:
:
: prevent the EPA from issuing new regs on pollutants in water,including lead;
:
: prevent the EPA from issuing rules on wetlands;
:
: force public money to be used for payment on "property rights
: enfringement", where a law prevents someone from engaging in an
: environmentally destructive, prohibited activity;
:
: greatly increased logging in the Tongas NF in
: Alaska;
:
: attempts to sell off varying amounts of National Parks or other
: Public Land;
:
(much other stuff deleted)
: This is only what I can remember off the top of my head in a few minutes.
: I guess you don't read books, newspapers, watch TV, listen to radio, walk
: outside your house or even look out the window.
:
: Dave Braun
Enviromental regulations have gone way overboard. Do you believe a
farmer who can't farm his land because of new enviromental regulations
shouldn't be compensated? What about a pond that can't be drained
because it is a wetland?
Go ahead and spout off all your garbage about how Congress will destroy
the country. It is pure bullshit. They are cutting back unreasonable,
unfair, and arbitrary rules pushed by people who would be happy if we all
rode bikes to work.
Smokey
DK
>Go ahead and spout off all your garbage about how Congress will destroy
>the country. It is pure bullshit. They are cutting back unreasonable,
>unfair, and arbitrary rules pushed by people who would be happy if we all
>rode bikes to work.
>Smokey
So what's wrong with us all riding bikes to work? It might make you
healthier, happier and less abusively antagonistic. And try to get a
clue. You don't trash all of the progress we have made on cleaning up
the environment because part of the regulatory process is not working.
Gore has done a great job of starting to fix the process. Some of the
republicans want to completely trash what exist for a short term,
quick, easy profit. DK
AND YES! I've looked at the cross-post. They all seem appropriate.
Mike Conway
> Enviromental regulations have gone way overboard. Do you believe a
> farmer who can't farm his land because of new enviromental regulations
> shouldn't be compensated? What about a pond that can't be drained
> because it is a wetland?
>
What about farmers who dump hog waste directly into wetlands or ditched
fields that feed directly into rivers and streams.
How about development that destroys wetlands, thus further increasing
the nutrient burden and turbidity of these same rivers and streams,
causing fish kills of 15 million last summer on the Neuse, a billion a
couple of years ago, and forcing the closure of 10 miles of the river
this summer, as well as the permenant closure of many thousands (I think
the number is 360,000, but I cant document that here) of acres of
shellfish beds in the Albemare-Pamlico sound? Or how about that same
wetlands loss, pollution of groundwater with nitrogen and heavy metals
such as zinc, along with other functional losses such as ground water
recharge, fish spawning habitat, and other species support?
We're talking about the property rights of property owners downstream
too..right? How about the right of fishermen and charter owners to make
a living too...right? How about the right of citizens of NC to have
clean water to drink, swim in, boat around in, fish, etc as
well..right?
The bottom line is, property rights do NOT give anyone the right to
disavow their responsibility to the community and to the rights of their
neighbors. (This attitude is behind the whole 'takings movement',
spearheaded by Dole in s605..I think that's the bill number) A farmer
cannot dump pesticides on his field if they contaminate the drinking
water of the property owners around them.
While I might agree with you about the burden of regulation, I strongly
disagree with you about the current tack the 104th Congress is taking.
Between HR 9 and Doles 'reg reform' legislation, the congress is
attempting to do away with EVERY SINGLE environmental regulation, while
simultaniously cutting enforcement funds to such a level that regulatory
agencies cannot function. This new legislation 'reforms' regulation by
creating new and expensive beaurocracy to hamstring regulatory agencies,
promotes lawsuits by polluting industries, blocks public participation,
prevents gathering of scientific data, and encourages corporate
representatives with conflicts of interest to sit on panels that
peer-review regulations. this legislation was so awful that it failed a
clouture vote in the senate three times. Dole then attempted to tack it
on to the debt ceiling bill. A similar attempt was made in the House a
few months ago, and this too had to be yanked.
All this talk about the 'cost' of regulation and not one mention of the
cost of non-regulation.......
I'll repeat...Newt Gingrich has presided over the most
anti-environmental congress in history. What they are doing is pure
stupidity.
I'm still looking to post some of the content of some of the
appropriation 'riders' to continue this thread...out of time now...
D. Braun
> Enviromental regulations have gone way overboard. Do you believe a
> farmer who can't farm his land because of new enviromental regulations
> shouldn't be compensated? What about a pond that can't be drained
> because it is a wetland?
>
> Go ahead and spout off all your garbage about how Congress will destroy
> the country. It is pure bullshit. They are cutting back unreasonable,
> unfair, and arbitrary rules pushed by people who would be happy if we all
> rode bikes to work.
>
Care to rebut anything actually using facts, studies, and numbers? No, I
guess you would probably prefer to "spout off" colorful nonsense. Let's
pick just one. Development in the watershed of the Chesapeake Bay (MD, DL,
VA) has caused it to become eutrophic, and it has become subject to
massive fih die-offs, eel grass decline, and red-tides. Not to mention
toxic pollutants, and wetland loss, both fresh and tidal, due to filling
and dredging. Pruductive
fisheries in this vast area could produce 10s of millions per year, for
shellfish, fish (commercialand recreational), and tourism.
What caused it? Poor farming practices, air
pollution, and non-point pollution from lots of pavement, roofs, and cars
has caused the eutrophication and toxics contamination.
What to do? Retain wetlands protection (these are not "new" and actually
predate Clinton---they just haven't been enforced--- Bush tried to weaken
them, as the current Congress is); promote greater treatment of sewage
(keeping toxics separate), cleanse non-point run-off; retain green spaces
and prevent additional sprawl with zoning; reduce toxic pollution;
encourage farmers to retain green strips, better tillage practices,
reduced fertilizer and pesticide use to reduce nutrient and toxics
run-off.
This is a short list. Onerous? No. It just makes common sense--- and can
actually save money in the long run. BTW, who is paying for the
environmental damage
caused by damaging land-use and pollution practices? Is it fair for others
to pay, now and in the future: for clean up, and lost opportunities to
utilize what should be renewable resources? No. Is it fair to stick them
with an ugly and dangerous environment, needlessly ? No.
Then again, you may deny that we have any environmental problems, or that
they don't matter---- as the present Congress seems to believe. If so,
you are a denialist loon (my apologies to the bird)
Dave Braun
PS- you snipped this-- please tell me how it is reasonable to cut the
Chief of the FS pay to $1--- and $1 for running the Mohave National
Preserve? Also, please tell me how it is reasonable to suppress a study,
almost completed, and at the cost of millions of $, on the state of the
Columbia Basin ecosystem---- because reccommendations were sure to come
out that would limit non-sustainable logging, grazing, and hydro-power
practices---- when the mandate for the poublic land is sustainable
management of all resources? Is not this attitude similar to the leaders
of the Inquisition that wanted to burn Galileo at the stake because he
dared to challenge religeous dogma with observable, scientific fact?
Dave Braun
Hanson
smo...@sky.net (smokey williams) wrote:
>05.56299...@homer17.u.washington.edu>
>Distribution:
>(much other stuff deleted)
Right. Who needs environmental regulations. It's only air and water
and land and the food we eat and the medicine we take. Let the
invisible hand of the market take care of the problem. It's never
failed us yet.
>Go ahead and spout off all your garbage about how Congress will destroy
>the country. It is pure bullshit.
Kind of hard for him to spout all that "Bullshit" with you cutting the
article, isn't it?
Why not leave it there and let people decide for themselves?
That's what's happening, pal. Whether you like it or not. Even the
Sociopath of the House has recognized that the GOP is DOA on public
approval for the War on the Environment.
RH
"The people have spoken... The bastards!"
Newt Gingrich upon reading the latest popularity poll.
Patrick J. McGuinness
In article <DqyA...@deepthought.com> f...@deepthought.com (Frank Pittel) writes:
>WellWell (hir...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: Frank Pittel wrote:
>: >
>: > Mike Conway (mcc....@mhs.adp.unc.edu) wrote:
>: > : > House Speaker Newt Gingrich has taken very rational positions on
>: > : > environmental issues, unlike the wacko in the White House.
True.
The legalistic zeal that leads to abusive regulatory action:
"The current enforcement trend is to criminalize reporting and other
'paper' violations which EPA assumes will help prevent more
serious violations from occuring and increase the deterrrent
effect of the law." - former EPA General counsel
Examples of abuses and excesses:
- A man faces 1 year in prison and a fine of $300,000 for killing
5 kangaroo rats while tilling his land.
- A 60-year old truck mechanic with no previous convictions
served nearly two year in jail for filling in some of his
property near Philadelphia without the necessary federal permits.
- A farmer had some land that he had farmed for decades become
flooded. Before he could drain it, it was declared a wetland,
and he was told he couldn't do anything at all to it. After
10 years of wranging, the area was drained as a result of
action by a nearby railroad. When the farmer asked why the railroad
could do what he could not, he was told "they have more clout".
- Ranchers here in Texas have been unable to clear land
because of strict interpretation of habitat considerations
in the Endagered Species Act. So trees that actually harm
the ranch habitat cannot be cut down or culled.
What the Republican Congress has been trying to change:
" ... we attempted to give the Great Lakes states the ability to
come up with more effective and innovative ways to meet the EPA's water
quality standards.
We also tried to give the states more authority in designing emission testing
programs to maximize both participation and consumer choice.
Sadly, the President vetoed our efforts.
Republicans believe that on the Federal level, it is altogether
appropriate to come up with national standards to protect the environment.
But we also believe in giving Americans outside of Washington the
flexibility to meet those standards. ...
Most of the current regulatory system is base on a seriees of laws that
were passed decades ago.
We don't want to weaken those laws. we won't roll them back. But we
will attempt to make them work better.
A perfect example comes with the Superfund. It was extablished to clean
up toxic waste dumps that endanger children and our neighborhoods.
Unfortunately, the original legislation was designed in such a way
that it caused endless litigation and delays in cleanup.
The Congress is now working on legislation that many not make the Washington
lawyers happy, but will clean up the toxic messes. Cleaning up the process
can result in cleaning up the mess."
- Tom DeLay
>: > : Gingrich has presided over the most anti-environmental congress in
>: > : history. The 104th has attempted to undo EVERY law ever put in place to
>: > : protect health and the environment, and has made every attempt to allow
>: > : extractive industries to run rampant over our environment with no regard
>: > : to common sense or the taxpayer's expense.
>: >
>: > The sad part of the above statement is that you actually believe the
>: > above statement.
>: >
>: Oh, really? And what are your specifics to rebut what the gentleman said?
>
>I'm still waiting for proof to the initial assertion. Of course since
>the original asssertion is nothing more then the fabrication of the
>DNC I'm not holding my breath waiting for the proof.
Yes, the original assertion is DNC balderdash and so can never be backed up.
I thought I'd throw some factual logs on the fire, to keep you warm
while you wait.
Pat
Budget fact:
Medicare spending, under the GOP Congressional plan that Clinton
vetoed for NOT SPENDING ENOUGH, had Medicare spending rising about 60%
over 7 years, from $175 billion in 1995 to $290 billion in 2002.
On a per-person basis, Medicare spending would rise in the plan
from $4700 to over $7000.
--
Observe -> Understand -> Direct -> Act
^_______________________________/
D. Braun
On Wed, 8 May 1996, DON KLEIN wrote:
> Mike Conway <mcc....@mhs.adp.unc.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Enviromental regulations have gone way overboard. Do you believe a
> >> farmer who can't farm his land because of new enviromental regulations
> >> shouldn't be compensated? What about a pond that can't be drained
> >> because it is a wetland?
> >>
>
> >I'll repeat...Newt Gingrich has presided over the most
> >anti-environmental congress in history. What they are doing is pure
> >stupidity.
>
> >I'm still looking to post some of the content of some of the
> >appropriation 'riders' to continue this thread...out of time now...
>
>
> LETS GET SOME HARD FACTS in this discussion, The
> republicans arn't stupid and neither is the public. It is political
> suicide to be against practical enviornmental regulations. Today
> too much power has been given to the bureaucratic agencies to
> write regulations that they THINK are in accordence with the law.
> Then the lawyers climb into the picture and the eternal clock runs
> and runs and runs. Please I would like very much to find a place
> where facts in brief form are presented on this attack on the
> republican's so called stand on anti-enviornmentalism. Perhaps there
> is a place where more clear heads do pervail.
Dear Don:
Sorry, but the answer is rarely simple when environmental impacts are
discussed on a scientific basis. I'm sure you will find this out if you
do a little digging. The first thing you have to do is to stop relying on
politicians to tell you what is behind the shallow mwdia description of
environmental issues--- they can't. One source is scientific papers;
second, I would go to government studies--- e. g., Forest Service, US Fish
and Wildlife; third, I would go to reports by environmental groups such as
the Wilderness Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, World Watch;
fourth, I would try United Nations Reports on the Environment. Then, go
read some laws---- like the Endangered Species Act. Do this, and you will
begin to be informed. I'm not kidding, really. BTW, the order of this
list does not imply that one is a better source than the others;
scientific papers are peer reviewed, but tend to be narrowly focused
and a bit arcane in language. The other sources all use citations. On the
other hand, various "greenscam" books also use SOME citations, but
interweave one-sided selective story telling and speculation as fact, and
over-generalization (in other words, they are pretty good propaganda). By
all means read them, but you will better spend your time in other areas.
About the regulations: first get informed, then decide if they need
replacing with more effective ones; environmental issues actually do
exist behind the regulations, no matter what you might hear from the
"environmental problem denialists"---- the question is how serious they
are, and what can be done about them----both "on paper" and in the real
world. Oh, and don't forget that "cost benefit analysis" is limited
by being based on present day knowledge of these problems. Don't believe
me? Find out for yourself.
Sincerely, Dave Braun
D. Braun
On 9 May 1996, Patrick J. McGuinness wrote:
> In article <DqyA...@deepthought.com> f...@deepthought.com (Frank Pittel) writes:
> >WellWell (hir...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> >: Frank Pittel wrote:
> >: >
> >: > Mike Conway (mcc....@mhs.adp.unc.edu) wrote:
> >: > : > House Speaker Newt Gingrich has taken very rational positions on
> >: > : > environmental issues, unlike the wacko in the White House.
>
>
> True.
False.
> The legalistic zeal that leads to abusive regulatory action:
>
> "The current enforcement trend is to criminalize reporting and other
> 'paper' violations which EPA assumes will help prevent more
> serious violations from occuring and increase the deterrrent
> effect of the law." - former EPA General counsel
You have a problem with actually enforcing the law? Not reporting waste in
violation of emmissions laws dosen't matter?
> Examples of abuses and excesses:
> - A man faces 1 year in prison and a fine of $300,000 for killing
> 5 kangaroo rats while tilling his land.
> - A 60-year old truck mechanic with no previous convictions
> served nearly two year in jail for filling in some of his
> property near Philadelphia without the necessary federal permits.
> - A farmer had some land that he had farmed for decades become
> flooded. Before he could drain it, it was declared a wetland,
> and he was told he couldn't do anything at all to it. After
> 10 years of wranging, the area was drained as a result of
> action by a nearby railroad. When the farmer asked why the railroad
> could do what he could not, he was told "they have more clout".
> - Ranchers here in Texas have been unable to clear land
> because of strict interpretation of habitat considerations
> in the Endagered Species Act. So trees that actually harm
> the ranch habitat cannot be cut down or culled.
The so called "horror stories" revolving around violations of wetlands
laws and the ESA are used as propaganda; by only excerpting small bits
from each case, they paint the law as extreme. What was the full history
behind these "stories"? Its not here, so I really can't comment on the
"horror" nature of them. Stories which may refer to these bits have been
rebutted effectively elsewhere--- if you are interested, get a copy of the
actual case, or contact an environmental group that is working at
RETAINING and STRENGTHENING the ESA and wetlands laws---which is needed.
Glaringly missing in your excerpts is any mention of why the regulation
might be needed, or how the people's actions may negatively impact other's
property, or the biological diversity that does not BELONG to them.
Also, in many such cases, there has been a history of repeatedly ignoring
the law, refusing to obtain permits, and refusing to follow reasonable
mitigation which would have allowed some economic activity.
> What the
Republican Congress has been trying to change: >
> " ... we attempted to give the Great Lakes states the ability to
> come up with more effective and innovative ways to meet the EPA's water
> quality standards.
> We also tried to give the states more authority in designing emission testing
> programs to maximize both participation and consumer choice.
> Sadly, the President vetoed our efforts.
Why did he veto these measures? You don't say. What was behind this
politico-gobbledegook language by the anti-reg people---- what changes
were they proposing? You don't say. Charges that the anti-reg people are
seeking to roll back enviro-regs at the cost of environmental degradation,
public health impacts, reduced biodiversity, reduced ability of citizen
involvement, reduced ability to sue for damages, is not rebuted by these
quotes.
> Republicans believe that on the Federal level, it is altogether
> appropriate to come up with national standards to protect the environment.
> But we also believe in giving Americans outside of Washington the
> flexibility to meet those standards. ...
And an example of "greater flexibility"? Political meddling that ignores
scientific studies and assessments?
> Most of the current regulatory system is base on a seriees of laws that
> were passed decades ago.
>
> We don't want to weaken those laws. we won't roll them back. But we
> will attempt to make them work better.
Example? This is double-speak. Proposals for the EPA will gut it; new
wetlands laws would allow most of what is left to be erradicated;
continuation of the Salvage Rider would destroy all remaining roadless
areas and large tracts of primary forests---- which, based on science
based ecosystem management, are required to be left intact if there is
to be any reasonable probability of desired outcomes. Why do you think
the Salvage Rider shelves all applicable environmental laws?
> A perfect example comes with the Superfund. It was extablished to clean
> up toxic waste dumps that endanger children and our neighborhoods.
> Unfortunately, the original legislation was designed in such a way
> that it caused endless litigation and delays in cleanup.
Could it be that various industry groups fought the original law, and
schemed with the EPA itself under Reagan-Bush in order to make it appear
unworkable and a boondoggle? Remember Ann Gorsuch?
> The Congress is now working on legislation that many not make the Washington
> lawyers happy, but will clean up the toxic messes. Cleaning up the process
> can result in cleaning up the mess."
> - Tom DeLay
By lowering clean-up standards and reducing citizen input and rights of
appeal, and industry liability? Define the problem as insignificant, and
hide the dirty dealing from the public and muzzle them---sounds
reasonable.
>
> >: > : Gingrich has presided over the most anti-environmental congress in
> >: > : history. The 104th has attempted to undo EVERY law ever put in place to
> >: > : protect health and the environment, and has made every attempt to allow
> >: > : extractive industries to run rampant over our environment with no regard
> >: > : to common sense or the taxpayer's expense.
> >: >
> >: > The sad part of the above statement is that you actually believe the
> >: > above statement.
> >: >
> >: Oh, really? And what are your specifics to rebut what the gentleman said?
> >
> >I'm still waiting for proof to the initial assertion. Of course since
> >the original asssertion is nothing more then the fabrication of the
> >DNC I'm not holding my breath waiting for the proof.
>
> Yes, the original assertion is DNC balderdash and so can never be backed up.
> I thought I'd throw some factual logs on the fire, to keep you warm
> while you wait.
I rebuted this in an earlier post, in which I brought up about a dozen
measures that the R controlled Congress tried to ram through; these
include: Reducing Jack Ward Thomas' pay to $1 (Forest Service Chief);
reducing funding for the
Mohave Desert Preserve to $1; Preventing the EPA from issuing new regs on
lead and radon in drinkling water; suppressing the study on the interiror
Columbia Basin (inland Northwest Columbia River Basin), becasue it might
lead to reduced logging and grazing on public lands heavily impacted by
logging and grazing---the study was 3/4 complete at the cost of millions;
gutting the ESA by making listing up to political appointees instead of a
scientific panel, and using cost benefit analysis to decide on listing----
even though the "worth" of perhaps 99% of species is unknown; etc........
> Pat
---Dave Braun
Mike Conway
> > Examples of abuses and excesses:
> > - A man faces 1 year in prison and a fine of $300,000 for killing
> > 5 kangaroo rats while tilling his land.
> > - A 60-year old truck mechanic with no previous convictions
> > served nearly two year in jail for filling in some of his
> > property near Philadelphia without the necessary federal permits.
> > - A farmer had some land that he had farmed for decades become
> > flooded. Before he could drain it, it was declared a wetland,
> > and he was told he couldn't do anything at all to it. After
> > 10 years of wranging, the area was drained as a result of
> > action by a nearby railroad. When the farmer asked why the railroad
> > could do what he could not, he was told "they have more clout".
> > - Ranchers here in Texas have been unable to clear land
> > because of strict interpretation of habitat considerations
> > in the Endagered Species Act. So trees that actually harm
> > the ranch habitat cannot be cut down or culled.
>
Two stories that jump to mind are the story of Ocie Mills, the man who 'went to jail for unknowingly filling a
drainange ditch with sand', and the fellow who had 'hordes of fbi agents and helocopters swoop down on him
for running his tractor over some rats'....I think that is the first case you refer to where The fish and wildlife
service had warned the fellow three times, went to court, and one of the
fws guys offered to assist him in obtaining incidental take permits,
which he could have done, to allow him to till his land. The guy violated repeatedly a court order.
The fellow Ocie Mills
bought the land on the cheap knowing that the previous owner had been ordered to halt dredge-and-fill activities. He had defied a court
obtained cease and disist order twice before he was charged.
I know the Washington Post last year did a story on 10 of these myths last year. If you have access to lexus/nexus that might
be a good place to start looking.
Anecdotes are fun, you can find one or make one up for any occasion. Peer reviewed research is another...got some
numbers? GAO did a study of esa regulations and the impact on development in 1990 or 1991 that show quite a different
picture......
> Republican Congress has been trying to change: >
> > " ... we attempted to give the Great Lakes states the ability to
> > come up with more effective and innovative ways to meet the EPA's water
> > quality standards.
> > We also tried to give the states more authority in designing emission testing
> > programs to maximize both participation and consumer choice.
>
What bill are you referring to...with great lakes are you talking about hr961(I think that was the clean water act
'reauthorization'). If so..have fun!
> > Republicans believe that on the Federal level, it is altogether
> > appropriate to come up with national standards to protect the environment.
> > But we also believe in giving Americans outside of Washington the
> > flexibility to meet those standards. ...
No...they are trying to do away with the standards, do away with enforcement, and do away with the scientific
basis. Ex. wetlands deliniation. In 1990 or 91 congress had the National Academy of Sciences study
the methods of wetlands designation written into the law. That is, identifying wetlands based on
hydrology, plant life, animal life, etc. The 'improved' clean water act then did away with these scientifically
based criteria, replacing it with industry-friendly rules that remove protection from most wetlands. Lauch Faircloth
(who is also attempting to do away with the Clean Air Act, but is running into opposition) then tried to pass a compainion measure
that removes protection from between 70-80 percent of wetlands in the entire country. This is 'improvement'?
>
> > The Congress is now working on legislation that many not make the Washington
> > lawyers happy, but will clean up the toxic messes. Cleaning up the process
> > can result in cleaning up the mess."
> > - Tom DeLay
This sounds funny coming from the guy trying to hold hearings about ozone depletion and how it
doesnt exist. When the scientists who broke ground on this issue were awarded the Nobel during his hearings
he called them the 'Nobel Appeasment Committee'. This is also the same guy that wants to bring
back DDT...right?
> > Yes, the original assertion is DNC balderdash and so can never be backed up.
> > I thought I'd throw some factual logs on the fire, to keep you warm
> > while you wait.
>
Just curious..did you read my previous post...i put as many bill numbers as i had at hand into it...we can talk about those bills,
and I'll try and find time to post some of the appropriations riders as well.
I dont know what all this is about "DNC", since I dont work for them. It has to do with the environment, I'm an
environmentalist. If I saw Sherwood Bohlert on the street I'd shake his hand, hes been a good guy on the environment,
(a republican). Environmental protection used to be a bi-partisan issue. We can talk about newt being the voice of reason
on the environment..but how about you putting some facts on the table. Do you think that all of these anti-environmental bills
dont exist? They are available on the web through thomas....you'll have to defend THEM, and saying its some
'DNC' trick wont hold water. (clean or dirty ;-) )
Regards, Mike
Mike Conway
> > LETS GET SOME HARD FACTS in this discussion, The
> > republicans arn't stupid and neither is the public.
Please I would like very much to find a place
> > where facts in brief form are presented on this attack on the
> > republican's so called stand on anti-enviornmentalism. Perhaps there
> > is a place where more clear heads do pervail.
I have provided bill numbers where I have them, and have taken a
crack at listing some of the worst bills...a good place to start would
be 'thomas', where you can read the markups of this legislation.
Are those 'hard facts?'.
I'd be glad to take a look at any of those bills...and I think I do have
a fairly clear head.
GREENWALT ART E
DON KLEIN (donk...@adnc.com) wrote:
: LETS GET SOME HARD FACTS in this discussion, The
: republicans arn't stupid and neither is the public. It is political
: suicide to be against practical enviornmental regulations. Today
: too much power has been given to the bureaucratic agencies to
: write regulations that they THINK are in accordence with the law.
: Then the lawyers climb into the picture and the eternal clock runs
: and runs and runs. Please I would like very much to find a place
: where facts in brief form are presented on this attack on the
: republican's so called stand on anti-enviornmentalism. Perhaps there
: is a place where more clear heads do pervail.
Okay..that's a reasonable request.
Having lived here in Alaska some 26 years I've got a pretty good idea
what life is like up here, what the environment is like in terms of
fragility, etc. As an example of the latter, the growth rate for trees
is remarkably slow even here in the constant-daylight of the Interior
where you can find black spruce no more than 2 inches in diameter that
are 60 or 70 years old, rather commonly.
The Tongass is a coastal rainforest, with faster growth rates than what
we have here but still slower recovery rates than the Lower '48. When
Stevens proposed opening it up to increased logging the Forest Service
scheduled some areas along the Seward Highway as part of those offerings.
This immediately enraged many of the people living near there and
Stevens, in turn, complained the Forest Service was trying to cause him
problems. However, they had done just what he had told them to do. What
the people were rightfully concerned about was the effects of the
logging, the same effects that will be seen regardless of where the
cutting occurs in the forest. This fact has eluded Stevens, apparently.
Moreover, our other Senator, Murkowski, came up earlier in the year as
well as late last year and held a series of public testimony hearings on
logging the Tongass. His staff very carefully selected pro-logging
witnesses and invited only them to attend and give testimony. In a
number of places the people testifying were outnumber by anti-logging
protesters, none of whom Murkowski spoke to or gave a chance to testify.
He then returned to Congress to report he had complete backing in all his
hearings in the state.
On oil, Young, Stevens and Murkowski have been pushing very hard to
open ANWR to drilling. A university biologist, Dr. Ray Cameron, here at
the Univ. of Ak.-Fairbanks, last year was in the 7th year of his study of
the Central Arctic Herd which is the herd that has Prudhoe Bay in its
area. Of all the herds on the North Slope, it is the only one showing a
decline in numbers after an initial growth. All other herds, the Western
Arctic and the Porcupine Herd (which is the one in ANWR) have also shown
similar growth and continue to show it. But the herd staying around the
oil fields is going into a decline in birth rate of some 20% last year.
This is definitely not due to overgrazing, disease, predation, etc. Dr.
Cameron felt rather certainly it has a strong link to the presence of the
development. No one has disproved that theory and the state game biologists
have confirmed his numbers on the decline, etc. They neither dispute his
theory nor demonstrate other possible causes.
The Porcupine Herd often calves right in the area that is considered
most promising for oil (the presence of oil in economical amounts is not
a proven point by any means, btw). The Gwich'in Tribe, living on the
southern edge of the refuge, are culturally and economically dependent on
the caribou. They are have a tradition going back millenia of hunting
mainly caribou. The Eskimos in Kaktovik, which is very close to the
calving grounds, hunt mainly whales. Caribou are incidental to them.
They support drilling in ANWR. The Gwich'in do not. Most Alaskans
(approx. 70%) support the drilling but then 3/4's of our population live
in urban areas and are not the Gwich'in.
Murkowski went to visit the Gwich'in last year. They did not hold a
ceremonial welcoming dance, which is extremely unusual. They did tell him
they did not want the drilling. They have sent some of their people to
Washington to talk to our delegates and in one case, Stevens, not only
did their tribal person have to sit outside his office for a half-hour
but when she finally got to see Stevens he soon was shouting at her in
disagreement.
The Alaska Federation of Natives voted to support drilling 19 to 11.
That means 11 tribal organizations felt it was not a good idea, which is
a considerable opposition even given the 19 who did. Many of the 19 were
coastal Eskimos not associated with ANWR in any way.
What's interesting is now that offshore drilling has been proposed in
the Kaktovik area, the Eskimos there are very concerned and are voicing
opposition to drilling.
Even more, appearing in today's paper is news of a 20,000 gallon oil
leak north of Glennallen on the pipeline due to a plug coming out. The
pipeline is getting older and is subject to more leaks, more valve
failures, etc. Oil from ANWR would feed into Prudhoe which would require
above-ground lines stretching about 100 miles. Caribou do not like
obstructions in their migrations and often their response is to alter
their route. This denies them use of nutrient-rich grazing areas, opens
them to more disturbance by flies (which sounds silly but much research
has been done and shows caribou lose a lot of calories in the summer
trying to evade the biting flies, an effect that can adversely affect
pregnant females), may cause them to overgraze other areas in their
territory. Often you see photos of caribou by the pipeline but if you
take note you will find it is usually bull caribou which are
less-affected by such disturbances. Unfortunately, it is not the bulls
that give birth.
All of this info has been disputed, despite being well-documented, by
our Alaskan Congressional delegation. Don Young, as head of the House
Natural Resources Committee has vowed often publicly that he would
dismantle the EPA, Wetlands legislation, etc. This despite no losses in
Alaska to Wetlands Legislation. Murkowski and Stevens have worked very
hard on opening the Tongass to increased logging. All have also tried to
decrease funding to the National Park System. Young, having just
received publicity about wasting several thousand dollars flying
Congressmen up to Alaska on "fact-finding" tours regarding ANWR. He
claimed it was to convince them of the need to open ANWR but these votes
were already promised him; the trips were unnecessary. As a result of
this publicity, Young is now seeking a GAO investigation into Babbitt's
travels. It's a political ploy for Young hates Babbitt.
Of Young's campaign contributions, something like 75% come from
*outside* Alaska, i.e., oil industry, development interests, etc.
Murkowski and Stevens also demonstrate a very high contribution rate
from development interests.
These are just three of the 104th's Republicans but they are perhaps
amongst the most vehemently anti-environmental and have worked very, very
hard to roll back all environmental legislation.
I tell you...as an Alaskan it makes me want to apologize to every other
American...
...Art, in Alaska
smokey williams
Mike Conway (mcc....@mhs.adp.unc.edu) wrote:
: > Enviromental regulations have gone way overboard. Do you believe a
: > farmer who can't farm his land because of new enviromental regulations
: > shouldn't be compensated? What about a pond that can't be drained
: > because it is a wetland?
: How about development that destroys wetlands, thus further increasing
: causing fish kills of 15 million last summer on the Neuse, a billion a
: couple of years ago, and forcing the closure of 10 miles of the river
: this summer, as well as the permenant closure of many thousands (I think
: the number is 360,000, but I cant document that here) of acres of
: shellfish beds in the Albemare-Pamlico sound? Or how about that same
: wetlands loss, pollution of groundwater with nitrogen and heavy metals
: such as zinc, along with other functional losses such as ground water
: recharge, fish spawning habitat, and other species support?
Did all this happen while the Republicans controlled Congress? No,
because every enviromental protection law passed since 1995 has been
vetoed by Clinton. So blame the Demo's, who passed the weak laws that
allow this to happen.
It's funny how the Democrats are always the ones who talk about
protecting the enviroment, but the Republicans are the ones trying to
help. Remember Dukakis trying his spiel out against Bush? Dukakis had
this brilliant plan to stop killing the earth, but he sure as hell
couldn't save the Boston Harbor.
Or Clinton's crusade against enviromental pollution. He doesn't mention,
however, how his bosses at Tyson Chicken turned Arkansas into a landfill
during the 1980's.
:
: We're talking about the property rights of property owners downstream
: too..right? How about the right of fishermen and charter owners to make
: a living too...right? How about the right of citizens of NC to have
: clean water to drink, swim in, boat around in, fish, etc as
: well..right?
I haven't heard any Republicans who are for dirty water, dirty air, or
dead fish in the rivers. And I have yet to hear how their bill will make
the water, the air and the rivers polluted. That is your opinion of what
will happen, so let's hear how. Giving us a bill number and telling us
what YOU think will happen doesn't carry a lot of weight.
:
: The bottom line is, property rights do NOT give anyone the right to
: disavow their responsibility to the community and to the rights of their
: neighbors. (This attitude is behind the whole 'takings movement',
: spearheaded by Dole in s605..I think that's the bill number) A farmer
: cannot dump pesticides on his field if they contaminate the drinking
: water of the property owners around them.
:
Of course not. That is the law. It won't be repealed.
: While I might agree with you about the burden of regulation, I strongly
: disagree with you about the current tack the 104th Congress is taking.
: Between HR 9 and Doles 'reg reform' legislation, the congress is
: attempting to do away with EVERY SINGLE environmental regulation, while
: simultaniously cutting enforcement funds to such a level that regulatory
: agencies cannot function.
Your statements have little credibility. EVERYONE in Congress wants a
clean enviroment. All that is different is the method. The Republicans
are trying to balance economic interests with enviromental interests.
We know that richer societies can pay for pollution controls. We
know private individuals can protect their own land much better than the
federal government. You don't piss in your own pool, do you?
:
: I'll repeat...Newt Gingrich has presided over the most
: anti-environmental congress in history. What they are doing is pure
: stupidity.
I look at the other side and see the same. I remember the Alar scare,
where kids could get cancer after eating 400 apples a day. I see the
Global Warming hoax, the population bomb scare and many other crises that
enviromentalists push in order to push their agenda. Now I look at these
same people and they are once again seeing doom in the Republican
congress. I know from the past who is credible and who is not. And it
isn't Al Gore and his merry band of wackos.
Smokey
Mike Conway
>
> Did all this happen while the Republicans controlled Congress? No,
> because every enviromental protection law passed since 1995 has been
> vetoed by Clinton. So blame the Demo's, who passed the weak laws that
> allow this to happen.
Every environmental law passed by the 104th congress has been an attempt to weaken
or eliminate environmental protections, or to extend subsidies to polluting and
extractive industries. I have summarized a cross-section of bills in another post....
> I haven't heard any Republicans who are for dirty water, dirty air, or
> dead fish in the rivers. And I have yet to hear how their bill will make
> the water, the air and the rivers polluted. That is your opinion of what
> will happen, so let's hear how. Giving us a bill number and telling us
> what YOU think will happen doesn't carry a lot of weight.
>
It matters not one whit what a particular legislator is 'for', it only matters what that
legislator does with his or her vote.
There are a lot of bills, but I guess we are talking about hr961, schusters "clean water
reauthorization". This bill was written by industry lobbyists. These lobbyists were allowed
to use congressional offices to re-write this legislation for themselves. Like a lot of these
bills, they sound sugar coated, but the devil is in the details. A lot of subtle language was
placed in this bill...the language of lawyers.
Here was LCV's analysis:
==============================
Severely weaken the Clean Water Act's successful programs for controlling sewage and toxic pollutant discharges into
waterways and sewers;
Allow higher levels of industrial discharges into lakes and rivers;
Virtually eliminate goals for reducing polluted runoff, the nation's largest source of water pollution;
Repeal the only existing program that sets meaningful and enforceable performance standards for cleaning up polluted
runoff from farms, city streets, mining, and other "non-point" sources;
Gut protection for wetlands by defining out of existence 60%-80% of America's wetlands, which are vital for flood
control, wildlife habitat and the filtering of pollutants out of water;
Include "takings" provisions that require the EPA and other agencies to pay developers whenever wetlands protection
arguably reduces land value by 20 percent or more.
===============================
Here is more detial
section 303:
Revised to allow states to 'write off' bodies of water as dirty and severely weaken standards. Even rivers that flow into other
states.
section 303d:
Does away with total maximum daily load standards, which requires that states determine the assimilative capacity
of bodies of water for pollution, and distribute that among pollution sources.
section 307:
Revised to weigh pollutors cost as much as science in setting standards.
Replaces science with an intentionally vague standard and mandates endless reviews
of existing regulations, even if the scientific basis for such regulations is
well proven. This leaves the whole thing wide open to industry meddling and litigation.
Rules for lead, pcb's etc will just be suspended if reviews miss a deadline.
section 404:
This, along with s581, Lauch Faircloth's bill, would remove protection for up to 80% of all wetlands in this country.
This figure comes from an Army Corps of Engineers field evaluation of the new criteria. Basically, this act replaces
scientifically validated criteria with industry freindly, non-scientific criteria.
**************
> :
> : The bottom line is, property rights do NOT give anyone the right to
> : disavow their responsibility to the community and to the rights of their
> : neighbors. (This attitude is behind the whole 'takings movement',
> : spearheaded by Dole in s605..I think that's the bill number) A farmer
> : cannot dump pesticides on his field if they contaminate the drinking
> : water of the property owners around them.
> :
>
> Of course not. That is the law. It won't be repealed.
>
S605 specifically would 'repeal' the above protection by
making it impossible to enforce every existing environmental protection. This is Doles
"Takings" bill. He is attempting to introduce it on the floor in the next couple of weeks.
Bills such as CWA and CAA are not 'repealed', they are just 'enhanced', or enforcement
is prevented by cutting the budget or adding riders, such as the rider in the Omnibus bill
that attempted to prevent the EPA from protecting wetlands. "It wont be repealed"........it sure will!
**************
>
> : While I might agree with you about the burden of regulation, I strongly
> : disagree with you about the current tack the 104th Congress is taking.
> : Between HR 9 and Doles 'reg reform' legislation, the congress is
> : attempting to do away with EVERY SINGLE environmental regulation, while
> : simultaniously cutting enforcement funds to such a level that regulatory
> : agencies cannot function.
>
> Your statements have little credibility. EVERYONE in Congress wants a
> clean enviroment. All that is different is the method. The Republicans
> are trying to balance economic interests with enviromental interests.
>
> We know that richer societies can pay for pollution controls. We
> know private individuals can protect their own land much better than the
> federal government. You don't piss in your own pool, do you?
History is against you there. Private individuals might not piss in their own pool, but
industry has a solid record of pissing in everybody else's pool.
Case in point, hog farming in North Carolina. This industry has been largely unregulated
due to the influence of the ag industry in the state. The recent spate of hog waste spills
(25 million gallons last summer) and the state of the Neuse, Cape Fear, and Tar-Pamilico rivers
outraged the public so much that gov Hunt had to push for some regulation.
Inspection of hog farms, private industry largely unregulated, last summer, found over
200 operations with illeagal discharges of hog excrement, 25% of all hog farms had some type
of violation, over 500 operations had lagoons so full that one major storm would cause
spills or ruptures, and over 500 operations had serious erosion of lagoon walls.
(fyi there are more hogs than people in north carolina, this is not some small industry, its
a multi-billion dollar corporate operation). This is the reality. These farms are passing
on part of the cost of their doing business to the public and the state, and then they complain about
the burden of regulation and 'private property rights'.
For more info, look at http://www.nando.net/sproject/hogs/hoghome.html
(Nando net is an excellent net newspaper anyways, a link worth keeping). This is a link to a whole
series about the hog industry, and is a good case in point, a great reminder of what environmental
regulations are all about, and what is being undone in Congress right now by the folks with the $$$$$)
This series recently won the Pulletzer.
****************************
>
> I look at the other side and see the same. I remember the Alar scare,
> where kids could get cancer after eating 400 apples a day. I see the
> Global Warming hoax, the population bomb scare and many other crises that
> enviromentalists push in order to push their agenda.
As far as what is a hoax or not...
Here is a link to the Union of Concerned Scientists home page. They have started something
called the 'sound science initiative' to combat a lot of junk science that is floating around these
days, perpetuated either by industry misinformation or 'popular' sources. If you look at peer-reviewed
scientific research you find that the mainstream consensus of sceince is a lot different then
what is represented in a lot of political rhetoric. (Tom Delay, etc). UCS represents a large amount
of the leading sceintists in botany, biology, atmospheric sceince, chemistry, etc. They also have
an uncomfortable amount of Nobel laurates in their ranks.
Another thing to look at would be the recently released IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) report
on Global Warming, so you can see where the consensus among scientists is on the subjects.
You can also look at the WMO (world meteorological organization), or NOAA for info on global climate change,
etc.
The National Acedemy of Sciences recently reported on two issues, the Endangered Species Act, and Wetlands Protection,
that would also be a good source.
Journals such as "science" (which recently had a good article about acid rain and forest health) would also
be a good place to look. (All this is not for you specifically, but for anyone else following this thread).
*************************************************************
D. Braun
On 10 May 1996, smokey williams wrote:
(snip)
> I look at the other side and see the same. I remember the Alar scare,
> where kids could get cancer after eating 400 apples a day. I see the
> Global Warming hoax, the population bomb scare and many other crises that
> enviromentalists push in order to push their agenda. Now I look at these
> same people and they are once again seeing doom in the Republican
> congress. I know from the past who is credible and who is not. And it
> isn't Al Gore and his merry band of wackos.
>
> Smokey
So, enviro "disinformation" equates in volume with "the other side"? Not
that I see. As a matter of fact, the NRDC simply pointed out that
proper regs. had not been written on ALAR (a plant growth regulator),
eventhough the substance caused cancer in
rats; the group also pointed out that the typical toxicity and teratogen
studies test one substance at a time, instead of the multiple substances
that people are exposed to in food, and do not allow for the fact that
children's intake of some food----such as apples--- are in far greater
quantities than the average adult, which is how regs. are written. If the
media blew the "Alar scare" out of proportion, why is it NRDC's fault,
when they were merely citing facts? Second, "the Global Warming Hoax" is
a fiction you chose to believe in; even though a concensus of scientists
now agree that is occurring; for several years, scientists agreed that it
was likely, but that they didn't know how much temperatures would rise, or
when---that has changed. Third, have you read Gore's book, Earth in
the Ballance? Doubtful; it actually is quite reasonable---the "wackos"
either deny there are any environmental problems, claim that they are
made up by enviro groups to raise money, or that if they exist, they
don't matter, or that tecnology will fix it it. Count yourself with the
"wackos", since you apparently believe these claims.
Dave Braun
smokey williams
: Right. Who needs environmental regulations. It's only air and water
: and land and the food we eat and the medicine we take. Let the
: invisible hand of the market take care of the problem. It's never
: failed us yet.
Where did I say we don't need enviromental regulations?
:
:
: >Go ahead and spout off all your garbage about how Congress will destroy
: >the country. It is pure bullshit.
:
: Kind of hard for him to spout all that "Bullshit" with you cutting the
: article, isn't it?
:
: Why not leave it there and let people decide for themselves?
I cut the article because most people don't need to have the article
repeated in its entirety. You may have to read articles twice to get the
point, but the majority don't have to.
:
: RH
Smokey
Don Baccus
>Please I would like very much to find a place
>where facts in brief form are presented on this attack on the
>republican's so called stand on anti-enviornmentalism. Perhaps there
>is a place where more clear heads do pervail.
It seems pretty clear that in your mind, a "clear head" would only be
one which agrees with you that the current Republican Congress is
NOT anti-environmental.
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh is probably the only place you're likely to find
a majority of such "clear-headed" folks.
--
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <do...@rational.com>
Nature photos, site guides, and other goodies at:
http://www.xxxpdx.com/~dhogaza
D. Braun
I think Stevens and Murkowski have to be in a four-way tie with Gorton (R
WA) and Chenowith (R ID); the former of Salvage Rider and ESA gutting
fame, and the latter maker of memorable statements to the effect that
because we can buy canned salmon in the supermarket, runs going extinct
doin't matter, and that the "UN black helicopter force", "sighted" in the
proposed trans-border Cascadia Park area, is to be taken seriously.
Dave Braun, Seattle, WA
D. Braun
Obviously you didn't get the point. Is it a reading comprehension
problem, vast ignorance, or blinding partisan bias? Saying what I posted
is "pure bullshit" needs a little explication--- or any reader will
simply conclude that you have nothing to say. You failed to rebut anything
at all; all you showed was an ability to send an e-mail message.
"Bullshit" usually refers to fabrications, exagerations, or hog-wash.
Which proposed bills and spending measures did I make up, or change the
wording of? I am not the spouter of pure bullshit---rather, its the
writers of these measures and your opinion of my post, which
simply listed some of them and asked whether they were reasonable,
that is bullshit. Then again, maybe you admire bullshit; in that case,
your admiration is misplaced, for I didn't post any.
Dave Braun, poster of "pure bullshit".
No nickname, just a name.
smokey williams
Distribution:
Mike Conway (mcc....@mhs.adp.unc.edu) wrote:
:
: There are a lot of bills, but I guess we are talking about hr961,
schusters "clean water
: reauthorization". This bill was written by industry lobbyists.
These lobbyists were allowed
: to use congressional offices to re-write this legislation for themselves.
Like a lot of these
: bills, they sound sugar coated, but the devil is in the details.
A lot of subtle language was
: placed in this bill...the language of lawyers.
:
Funny how 8 of the 16 sponsors of HR 961 are Democrats.
I have a different opinion of what the bill will do. HR 961 will make
water pollution regulations more rational and cost-effective. It will
allow states to develop flexible procedures on pollution prevention. Its
goal is to develop cost-effective programs to improve water quality and
protect water resources. While there are some problems with the bill, it
is an improvement over the last one. States should be able to customize
their strategies to different pollution problems. A town in Kansas
shouldn't have to test for a pesticide used only for pineapples.
Pollution control works better when states use cooperative compliance
instead of tough enforcement to get industry to comply with pollution
control standards.
:
: History is against you there. Private individuals might not piss in their own pool, but
: industry has a solid record of pissing in everybody else's pool.
:
: Case in point, hog farming in North Carolina. This industry has been
largely unregulated
: due to the influence of the ag industry in the state. The recent spate
of hog waste spills
: (25 million gallons last summer) and the state of the Neuse, Cape Fear, a
nd Tar-Pamilico rivers
: outraged the public so much that gov Hunt had to push for some regulation.
: (fyi there are more hogs than people in north carolina, this is not
some small industry, its
: a multi-billion dollar corporate operation). This is the reality.
I agree with you that this is wrong. I would never want to do away with
good regulation, just overzealous rules that aren't cost-effective.
North Carolina surely needs better regulations and better enforcement,
but the blame lies at the top. Faircloth is a major hog investor. Hunt,
a Democrat, is the biggest recipient of political contributions from
Wendell Murphy, a Democrat who is NC's biggest pig farmer.
If you want improvement, get rid of these people.
: >
: > I look at the other side and see the same. I remember the Alar scare,
: > where kids could get cancer after eating 400 apples a day. I see the
: > Global Warming hoax, the population bomb scare and many other crises that
: > enviromentalists push in order to push their agenda.
:
:
: Another thing to look at would be the recently released IPCC (International
Panel on Climate Change) report
: on Global Warming, so you can see where the consensus among scientists is
on the subjects.
: You can also look at the WMO (world meteorological organization), or NOAA
for info on global climate change,
: etc.
How about the George C. Marshall Institute, which recently surveyed the
latest scientific evidence on global warming along with the latest
temperature data. It tried at every stage to give the benefit of the
doubt to those believing in global warming. Yet they conclude that "the
temperature increase produced in the 21 century by man-made origion will
be relatively minor and indistiguishable from the natural fluctuations of
the climate. Sufficient evidence has accumulated on the small size of
the manmade greenhouse effect to make it plain that no scientific
justification now exists for economical punishing policies aimed at
global reductions in the emission of carbon dioxide."
This institute is led by F. Seitz, a past president of the National
Academy of Sciences; Robert Jastrow, founder of the Goddard Institue for
Space Studies; and William Nierenber, a former director of the Scripps
Institue of Oceanography.
There is NO scientific consensus on global warming.
Smokey
smokey williams
D. Braun (dbr...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
:
: that I see. As a matter of fact, the NRDC simply pointed out that
: proper regs. had not been written on ALAR (a plant growth regulator),
: eventhough the substance caused cancer in
: rats; the group also pointed out that the typical toxicity and teratogen
: studies test one substance at a time, instead of the multiple substances
: that people are exposed to in food, and do not allow for the fact that
: children's intake of some food----such as apples--- are in far greater
: quantities than the average adult, which is how regs. are written. If the
: media blew the "Alar scare" out of proportion, why is it NRDC's fault,
: when they were merely citing facts?
I don't recall ever blaming the NRDC for the Alar scare.
Second, "the Global Warming Hoax" is
: a fiction you chose to believe in; even though a concensus of scientists
: now agree that is occurring; for several years, scientists agreed that it
: was likely, but that they didn't know how much temperatures would rise, or
: when---that has changed.
In the Soviet Union, Pravda used to start every lie with "As everyone
knows, (insert lie here)...". Enviromentalists now say "A consensus of
scientists...".
There is not a consensus of scientists on global warming.
Third, have you read Gore's book, Earth in
: the Ballance? Doubtful; it actually is quite reasonable---the "wackos"
: either deny there are any environmental problems, claim that they are
: made up by enviro groups to raise money, or that if they exist, they
: don't matter, or that tecnology will fix it it. Count yourself with the
: "wackos", since you apparently believe these claims.
:
: Dave Braun
:
Al Gore--" We now know that the automobile's cumulative impact on the
global enviroment is posing a moral threat to the security of every
nation that is more deadly than that of any military enemy we are ever
again likely to confront."
"Our civilization must be considered in some way dysfunctional. We
consume the Earth and its resources as a way to distract ourselves from
the pain."
Al Gore is a nut. He proves it in his book. What scares me is that we
can have such a man so close to the Presidency.
Smokey
D. Braun
On 11 May 1996, smokey williams wrote:
> D. Braun (dbr...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
> :
> : that I see. As a matter of fact, the NRDC simply pointed out that
> : proper regs. had not been written on ALAR (a plant growth regulator),
> : eventhough the substance caused cancer in
> : rats; the group also pointed out that the typical toxicity and teratogen
> : studies test one substance at a time, instead of the multiple substances
> : that people are exposed to in food, and do not allow for the fact that
> : children's intake of some food----such as apples--- are in far greater
> : quantities than the average adult, which is how regs. are written. If the
> : media blew the "Alar scare" out of proportion, why is it NRDC's fault,
> : when they were merely citing facts?
>
> I don't recall ever blaming the NRDC for the Alar scare.
Typically the "ALAR scare" and NRDC are said in the same breath, I guess
to demonize all enviros and the NRDC in particular. True, you didn't
mention the NRDC; so sorry.
> Second, "the Global Warming Hoax" is
> : a fiction you chose to believe in; even though a concensus of scientists
> : now agree that is occurring; for several years, scientists agreed that it
> : was likely, but that they didn't know how much temperatures would rise, or
> : when---that has changed.
>
> In the Soviet Union, Pravda used to start every lie with "As everyone
> knows, (insert lie here)...". Enviromentalists now say "A consensus of
> scientists...".
>
> There is not a consensus of scientists on global warming.
Wrong. The meaning of the word "concensus" does not neccessarily mean
EVERY scientist, or to be more specific, every scientist working in the
area of global warming. My statement is still true even if a minority of
scinetists working in this area say it aint so. Use your Websters. By
the way, scientists that aren't atmospheric chemists, glaciologists, or
the builders of GCMs (complex models of global climate), some of the
scientists working in the area, can also make an informed comment on
global warming; all it takes is enough background on the problem and the
use of the scientific method. I was implying, however, credentialed
scientists directly working on global warming, in the less strict sense of
the word consensus: 2b: the judgement arrived at by most of those
concerned (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. 1976.).
>
> Third, have you read Gore's book, Earth in
> : the Ballance? Doubtful; it actually is quite reasonable---the "wackos"
> : either deny there are any environmental problems, claim that they are
> : made up by enviro groups to raise money, or that if they exist, they
> : don't matter, or that tecnology will fix it it. Count yourself with the
> : "wackos", since you apparently believe these claims.
> :
> : Dave Braun
> :
>
> Al Gore--" We now know that the automobile's cumulative impact on the
> global enviroment is posing a moral threat to the security of every
> nation that is more deadly than that of any military enemy we are ever
> again likely to confront."
>
>
> "Our civilization must be considered in some way dysfunctional. We
> consume the Earth and its resources as a way to distract ourselves from
> the pain."
>
> Al Gore is a nut. He proves it in his book. What scares me is that we
> can have such a man so close to the Presidency.
>
> Smokey
Care to actually make a counterpoint to these statements? Your response
is logically the same as your "pure bullshit" one in response to a post
documenting the R led charge to dismantle environmental policy---- no
explanation, just groundless assertion. At least you only called him a
nut---- although one that "spouts pure bullshit" no doubt.
Dave Braun
D. Braun
On 11 May 1996, smokey williams wrote:
So why devolve enforcement and standards to the states? You shoot your
own point down (above)
I've defined concensus before; the people at this institute don't make one
(or prevent one from existing).
Even in your quote, which is a tiny piece of what this Institute has
undoubtedly published, it states:" the temperature increase produced in
the 21st century by man made warming..."
So, they agree that it is occuring---they disagree on how much. TYou were
saying?
Dave Braun
smokey williams
Distribution:
D. Braun (dbr...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
:
: Obviously you didn't get the point. Is it a reading comprehension
: problem, vast ignorance, or blinding partisan bias? Saying what I posted
: is "pure bullshit" needs a little explication--- or any reader will
: simply conclude that you have nothing to say. You failed to rebut anything
: at all; all you showed was an ability to send an e-mail message.
: "Bullshit" usually refers to fabrications, exagerations, or hog-wash.
: Which proposed bills and spending measures did I make up, or change the
: wording of? I am not the spouter of pure bullshit---rather, its the
: writers of these measures and your opinion of my post, which
: simply listed some of them and asked whether they were reasonable,
: that is bullshit. Then again, maybe you admire bullshit; in that case,
: your admiration is misplaced, for I didn't post any.
:
: Dave Braun, poster of "pure bullshit".
You will notice that I cut some of the previous articles. It is a
standard practice that you unfortunately haven't learned yet.
You have a belief that the Republican Congress wants to repeal all the
enviromental laws. That is not true, which is why I used the term "pure
bullshit".
You have also given us the bill number, and then your opinion of what is
the result of that enviromental reform. Do you really expect me do
believe that is what is going to happen?
As Bill McKibben admitted (he's a wacko also) in The End of Nature, "The
ecological movement has always had its greatest success in convincing
people that we are threatened by some looming problems." The problem is
now that the people in power will not fall for it this time.
Mr. Braun, lighten up a little. History has clearly shown that mankind's
energy and creativity will overcome whatever difficulties ahead. I know
you hate to hear it, but the end is not near. US rivers and streams are
getting cleaner every day, largely due to increased use of effective
wastewater treatment technology.
Smokey
Don Baccus
In article <Pine.A32.3.92a.960511...@homer05.u.washington.edu>,
D. Braun <dbr...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>I think Stevens and Murkowski have to be in a four-way tie with Gorton (R
>WA) and Chenowith (R ID); the former of Salvage Rider and ESA gutting
>fame
Oh, you must rank Hatfield right up there, too. After all, it was
Hatfield wrote the original Section 318 rider which the Salvage Logging
Bill has freed for harvest (along with a bunch of other sales). Remember,
the Section 318 rider nearly didn't make it past the Senate, and only
did so because Hatfield swore to the Senate that it was a one-off, that
he'd never be back to ask that environmental laws and the right of
citizen appeal be suspended again.
Of course, he kept his word by getting Gorton to introduce the
Salvage Rider (with Hatfield as co-sponsor), and letting Gorton
take the heat on the Senate floor while Hatfield worked the political
machine to make sure the Senate would pass it.
smokey williams
D. Braun (dbr...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
:
: > Second, "the Global Warming Hoax" is
: > : a fiction you chose to believe in; even though a concensus of scientists
: > : now agree that is occurring; for several years, scientists agreed that it
: > : was likely, but that they didn't know how much temperatures would rise, or
: > : when---that has changed.
: > There is not a consensus of scientists on global warming.
:
: Wrong. The meaning of the word "concensus" does not neccessarily mean
: EVERY scientist, or to be more specific, every scientist working in the
: area of global warming. My statement is still true even if a minority of
: scinetists working in this area say it aint so. Use your Websters. By
: the way, scientists that aren't atmospheric chemists, glaciologists, or
: the builders of GCMs (complex models of global climate), some of the
: scientists working in the area, can also make an informed comment on
: global warming; all it takes is enough background on the problem and the
: use of the scientific method. I was implying, however, credentialed
: scientists directly working on global warming, in the less strict sense of
: the word consensus: 2b: the judgement arrived at by most of those
: concerned (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. 1976.).
I appreciate the definition of consensus. I will say now that a
consensus of scientists don't believe in global warming. Gallup
conducted a poll for the Institue of Science, Technology and Media where
they interviewed scientists ACTIVELY involved in global climate
research. 53% of these scientists said they don't believe global warming
has occured. 30% said they don't know. A whopping 17% believed that
global warming has occurred.
Stephen Schneider, author of Global Warming, is quoted as
saying "Most climatologists do not yet claim beyond a resonable doubt
that the observed temperature records have been caused by the greenhouse
effect." Philip Abelson, former editor of Science, says that if global
warming is analyzed applying the customary standards of scientific
inquiry one must conclude there has been more hype than solid facts.
:
: >
: > Al Gore--" We now know that the automobile's cumulative impact on the
: > global enviroment is posing a moral threat to the security of every
: > nation that is more deadly than that of any military enemy we are ever
: > again likely to confront."
: >
: >
: > "Our civilization must be considered in some way dysfunctional. We
: > consume the Earth and its resources as a way to distract ourselves from
: > the pain."
: >
: > Al Gore is a nut. He proves it in his book. What scares me is that we
: > can have such a man so close to the Presidency.
: >
: > Smokey
:
: Care to actually make a counterpoint to these statements? Your response
: is logically the same as your "pure bullshit" one in response to a post
: documenting the R led charge to dismantle environmental policy---- no
: explanation, just groundless assertion. At least you only called him a
: nut---- although one that "spouts pure bullshit" no doubt.
:
: Dave Braun
I think those statements are nutty. He is the one who is giving us
groundless assertions. How about his comment about blind rabbits found
by hunters in Patagonia? Somebody needs to tell the scientists down
there. They haven't found one example of animals being blinded by excess
ultraviolet light in the Southern Hemisphere. Or the NASA press
conference in 1992 saying an ozone hole MIGHT open up over the US that
spring. This was very big news, making the cover of Time.
Was it just a coincidence that Gore's book was published only
days before? He was, after all, head of the subcommittee that oversees
NASA's budget.
Needless to say, NASA's budget doubled the next year. And surprise of
all surprises, no ozone hole was opened up over the US. Gore got a lot
of publicity though, and sold lots of books. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.
Smokey
Patrick J. McGuinness
In article <4mrc2s$p...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> rha...@ix.netcom.com (Hanson) writes:
>>Enviromental regulations have gone way overboard.
>
>Right. Who needs environmental regulations. It's only air and water
>and land and the food we eat and the medicine we take. Let the
Yes, let's create strawmen and knock them down, shall we?
After all, who needs shades of grey and moderation in this area,
when absolutist, black and white, all-or-nothing descriptions are so
much *simpler*.
<Hanson hate-speech deleted>
John M. Sully
In article <4n3stj$3...@alpha.sky.net>, smo...@sky.net writes:
> Mr. Braun, lighten up a little. History has clearly shown that mankind's
> energy and creativity will overcome whatever difficulties ahead. I know
> you hate to hear it, but the end is not near. US rivers and streams are
> getting cleaner every day, largely due to increased use of effective
> wastewater treatment technology.
Which is largely due to federal enforcement of the CWA. Don't shoot
down your own arguments, it looks silly.
--John
D. Braun
Citing polls is useless to bolster an argument unless you print the
questions asked, in their entirety---as welll as the sampling methods.
Could you provide: Date of poll; number of scientists
sampled and the pool from which they were sampled; questions asked. Your
post listed conclusions about what the results meant--- without citing
who made the conclusions. If you got the data third hand from a
newspaper, say so.
> Stephen Schneider, author of Global Warming, is quoted as
> saying "Most climatologists do not yet claim beyond a resonable doubt
> that the observed temperature records have been caused by the greenhouse
> effect." Philip Abelson, former editor of Science, says that if global
> warming is analyzed applying the customary standards of scientific
> inquiry one must conclude there has been more hype than solid facts.
Again, what is the context for this quote? And what does Abelson mean?
That there was more hype in "the media"?, by "environmental groups"?, by
Al Gore?, or by scientists? If he meant scientists, which ones?
I have not read the scientific articles (if they are published yet)
confiming that glbal warming due to anthropogenic activity is
occurring--- but it was widely reported in such venues as the NY Times.
>
: > : >
> : > Al Gore--" We now know that the automobile's cumulative impact on the
> : > global enviroment is posing a moral threat to the security of every
> : > nation that is more deadly than that of any military enemy we are ever
> : > again likely to confront."
> : >
> : >
> : > "Our civilization must be considered in some way dysfunctional. We
> : > consume the Earth and its resources as a way to distract ourselves from
> : > the pain."
> : >
> : > Al Gore is a nut. He proves it in his book. What scares me is that we
> : > can have such a man so close to the Presidency.
> : >
> : > Smokey
> :
> : Care to actually make a counterpoint to these statements? Your response
> : is logically the same as your "pure bullshit" one in response to a post
> : documenting the R led charge to dismantle environmental policy---- no
> : explanation, just groundless assertion. At least you only called him a
> : nut---- although one that "spouts pure bullshit" no doubt.
> :
> : Dave Braun
>
> I think those statements are nutty. He is the one who is giving us
> groundless assertions. How about his comment about blind rabbits found
> by hunters in Patagonia? Somebody needs to tell the scientists down
> there. They haven't found one example of animals being blinded by excess
> ultraviolet light in the Southern Hemisphere. Or the NASA press
Right. To rebut Gore's statement, you went to southern Chile or Patagonia
and talked to some hunters? If you go, maby you should talk to some
biologists as well. Heightened skin cancer has been a problem for years in
southern SA---- I personally haven't checked out the bunny quote.
> conference in 1992 saying an ozone hole MIGHT open up over the US that
> spring. This was very big news, making the cover of Time.
> Was it just a coincidence that Gore's book was published only
> days before? He was, after all, head of the subcommittee that oversees
> NASA's budget.
And what has happened in the last four years? Antarctic Ozone depletion
has considered to increase each year. Therefore, Gore wasn't "nutty" in
making this prediction.
> Needless to say, NASA's budget doubled the next year. And surprise of
> all surprises, no ozone hole was opened up over the US. Gore got a lot
> of publicity though, and sold lots of books. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.
He never said a hole had to open the next year. Global warming and ozone
depletion are akin to the frog boiled alive starting in cool water
analogy; most of us really are not much different from amphibians
> Smokey
>
Dave Braun
D. Braun
On 12 May 1996, smokey williams wrote:
> Distribution:
>
> D. Braun (dbr...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
> :
> : Obviously you didn't get the point. Is it a reading comprehension
> : problem, vast ignorance, or blinding partisan bias? Saying what I posted
> : is "pure bullshit" needs a little explication--- or any reader will
> : simply conclude that you have nothing to say. You failed to rebut anything
> : at all; all you showed was an ability to send an e-mail message.
> : "Bullshit" usually refers to fabrications, exagerations, or hog-wash.
> : Which proposed bills and spending measures did I make up, or change the
> : wording of? I am not the spouter of pure bullshit---rather, its the
> : writers of these measures and your opinion of my post, which
> : simply listed some of them and asked whether they were reasonable,
> : that is bullshit. Then again, maybe you admire bullshit; in that case,
> : your admiration is misplaced, for I didn't post any.
> :
> : Dave Braun, poster of "pure bullshit".
>
> You will notice that I cut some of the previous articles. It is a
> standard practice that you unfortunately haven't learned yet.
>
> You have a belief that the Republican Congress wants to repeal all the
> enviromental laws. That is not true, which is why I used the term "pure
> bullshit".
Your mistake, Mr. Smokey, is assuming you know what I believe and then
thinking that you are winning your argument by attacking your own opinion.
This is a tired old propaganda ploy. I never said that the "R. Congress
wants to repeal all environmnetal laws". What the Congress is trying to
do (with the help of some democrats) is repeal some laws, weaken others,
pass some making expolitation benefiting few and harming many,
weaken various agencies abilities to enforce laws and mandates through
reducing both funding and authority, and
reduce citizen appeals and abilities to challenge decisions in the courts.
We will still have environmental laws----however, many will actually cause
problems to worsen.
> You have also given us the bill number, and then your opinion of what is
> the result of that enviromental reform. Do you really expect me do
> believe that is what is going to happen?
Like I said, go read the Congressional record. I tend to believe the NRDC
list, which did list bill numbers.
> As Bill McKibben admitted (he's a wacko also) in The End of Nature, "The
> ecological movement has always had its greatest success in convincing
> people that we are threatened by some looming problems." The problem is
> now that the people in power will not fall for it this time.
And because it is the environmental movement that gets media attention, it
is not to be believed when it points out, for example, that logging the
last unreserved primary forest in the northwest will have serious
environmental consequences--- such as reduced recreation opportunity,
extinctions of species, reduced water quality, reduced opportunity for
scientific study of these control areas for the regional forest
management experiment in timber growing, reduced wild runs of salmon,
wrecked spiritual sites, increased flooding/drought, etc.? These impacts
are all verifiable, by checking scientific studies, or government reports
(such as the Presidents Forest Plan and FEIS). The Salvage Rider, passed
by Clinton in the Recissions bill
(scripted by Hatfield and Gorton, and the timber industry) does all this
by suspending environmental laws. Now there is a movement to extend it
beyond its fall application deadline.
> Mr. Braun, lighten up a little. History has clearly shown that mankind's
> energy and creativity will overcome whatever difficulties ahead. I know
> you hate to hear it, but the end is not near. US rivers and streams are
> getting cleaner every day, largely due to increased use of effective
> wastewater treatment technology.
I don't lighten up when faced with propaganda. So, now you are a
cornucopian/Tofler/Gingrich follower as well---
you know the old adage: You can fool some of the people some of the
time...
> Smokey
>
>
Dave Braun
Mike Conway
>
> Stephen Schneider, author of Global Warming, is quoted as
> saying "Most climatologists do not yet claim beyond a resonable doubt
> that the observed temperature records have been caused by the greenhouse
> effect."
Note the words..."beyond a reasonable doubt". I dont read that 'beyond a reasonable doubt'
in any responsible literature, true. That's what makes it responsible.....
What I do read is that global climate change is an important issue, and that
the mainstream consensus among scientists is that the influence of anthropogenic
greenhouse gases in global warming is being supported by mounting evidence.
Here is a link with some summary and data from the 1995 IPCC report, probably the
most complete, recent, and broadest overview of the real state of scientific thought on the subject.
IPCC, as I recall, represents about 2,500 of the worlds leading atmospheric researchers.
You will notice the tentative nature of the reports conclusions, true...but again, that
is why science is the only way to understand these issues, because it is constrained
by pesky stuff like data. Some of that data is presented in graphic form to mull over.
Here is the link:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcps/papers/climchg/climate-change-update.html
Here is a summary quote of the ipcc report:
==========
The IPCC has developed a range of possible future greenhouse gas and aerosol concentrations based on several different assumptions for the
period
1990 to 2100. These emissions can then be used to predict the climate. The increasing realism of simulations of current and past climate by
coupled
atmosphere-ocean climate models has increased our confidence in their use for projection of future climate change. Important uncertainties
remain, but
these have been taken into account in the full range of projections of global mean temperature and sea level change.
For the mid-range IPCC emission scenario, assuming the "best estimate" values of the variables, models project an increase in global mean
surface air
temperature relative to 1990 of about 2 degrees Celsius (4 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100. The lowest IPCC projected increase is about 1 deg. C (2
deg. F) by 2100, and the highest gives a warming of about 3.5 deg. C ( 7 deg. F). In all cases the average rate of warming would probably be
greater
than any seen in the last 10,000 years, but the actual annual to decadal changes would include considerable natural variability. Regional
temperature
changes could differ substantially from the global mean value. Because of the thermal inertia of the oceans, only 50-90% of the eventual
equilibrium
temperature change would have been realized by 2100 and temperature would continue to increase beyond 2100, even if concentrations of
greenhouse
gases were stabilized by that time.
Average sea level is expected to rise as a result of thermal expansion of the oceans and melting of glaciers and ice-sheets. The "best
estimate" models
project an increase in sea level of about 50 cm (20 inches) from the present to 2100. The lowest projected sea level rise is about 15 cm (6
inches), and
the highest is projected at about 95 cm (37 inches) from the present to 2100. Sea level would continue to rise at a similar rate beyond 2100,
even if
concentrations of greenhouse gases were stabilized by that time, and would continue to do so even beyond the time of stabilization of global
mean
temperature. Regional sea level changes may differ from the global mean value owing to land movement and ocean current changes.
================
This is a far cry from your claims of 'hoax', like the whole
idea originates from the 'psychic friends network'. Take a look at the report and its
conclusions (folks following the thread), compare it to how its being painted, do the
same with ozone depletion, extinction rates, habitat loss, etc.
There was some stuff about al gore following, and an implication that NASA or NOAA reported some
bogus study to help al gore sell his book, to be rewarded by a budget increase....
How about some science?
Mike Conway
>
> Yes, let's create strawmen and knock them down, shall we?
>
> After all, who needs shades of grey and moderation in this area,
> when absolutist, black and white, all-or-nothing descriptions are so
> much *simpler*.
Agreed....now which strawman are we talking about?
Don Baccus
In article <4mug3f$q...@alpha.sky.net>, smokey williams <smo...@sky.net> wrote:
>Mike Conway (mcc....@mhs.adp.unc.edu) wrote:
>Did all this happen while the Republicans controlled Congress? No,
>because every enviromental protection law passed since 1995 has been
>vetoed by Clinton.
Ummm...the laws vetoed by Clinton would further weaken the laws
that allowed the quoted outrages to occur.
>So blame the Demo's, who passed the weak laws that allow this to happen.
Fine. I wish the Demos had passed stronger laws while they had
the chance.
Your argument is hardly supportive of the notion that we should
let the Republicans further weaken them, however.
>It's funny how the Democrats are always the ones who talk about
>protecting the enviroment, but the Republicans are the ones trying to
>help.
How will further weakening of the laws help reduce the kind of
harmful development cited by the original poster?
>Or Clinton's crusade against enviromental pollution. He doesn't mention,
>however, how his bosses at Tyson Chicken turned Arkansas into a landfill
>during the 1980's.
Clinton is fairly weak, environmentally.
He is much better than the Far Right elements of the Republican
Party, which currently control Congress. This includes Newt.
He is worse than some historical Republican figures, for instance
Teddy Roosevelt and Oregon's own, farsited (and, sadly, deceased)
Tom McCall, governor of the state during much of the 70s. In those
days, environmentalism (and, especially that subset labelled
conservationism) was largely a bi-partisan concern.
>We know that richer societies can pay for pollution controls. We
>know private individuals can protect their own land much better than the
>federal government. You don't piss in your own pool, do you?
Actually, when my folks had one - I did.
>I see the Global Warming hoax
I see, scientists can't possibly be right when we know Rush has the
inside line on truth.
smokey williams
D. Braun (dbr...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
:
: > : >
: > : > There is not a consensus of scientists on global warming.
: > :
: > conducted a poll for the Institue of Science, Technology and Media where
: > they interviewed scientists ACTIVELY involved in global climate
: > research. 53% of these scientists said they don't believe global warming
: > has occured. 30% said they don't know. A whopping 17% believed that
: > global warming has occurred.
:
: Citing polls is useless to bolster an argument unless you print the
: questions asked, in their entirety---as welll as the sampling methods.
: Could you provide: Date of poll; number of scientists
: sampled and the pool from which they were sampled; questions asked. Your
: post listed conclusions about what the results meant--- without citing
: who made the conclusions. If you got the data third hand from a
: newspaper, say so.
You are the one who said there was a consensus of scientists who believe
in global warming. Where do you get your information?
You seem to want footnotes in all my posts, but don't bother posting yours.
There is a book called called "But Is It True", by Aaron Wildasky.
It just came out this year, and it has the information on this poll.
There is also a survey by Greenpeace, which found that "While 13 percent of
the climatologists surveyed thought an unstoppable greenhouse effect was
under way and 33 percent thought it was possible, 47 percent of
respondents were doubtful." This was on page 345.
:
: > Stephen Schneider, author of Global Warming, is quoted as
: > saying "Most climatologists do not yet claim beyond a resonable doubt
: > that the observed temperature records have been caused by the greenhouse
: > effect." Philip Abelson, former editor of Science, says that if global
: > warming is analyzed applying the customary standards of scientific
: > inquiry one must conclude there has been more hype than solid facts.
:
: Again, what is the context for this quote? And what does Abelson mean?
: That there was more hype in "the media"?, by "environmental groups"?, by
: Al Gore?, or by scientists? If he meant scientists, which ones?
: I have not read the scientific articles (if they are published yet)
: confiming that glbal warming due to anthropogenic activity is
: occurring--- but it was widely reported in such venues as the NY Times.
:
Do you really not know what they are say, or are you just being argumentive.
Here's another quote from Schneider in Discover (Oct 89, p 47)
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific
method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but--which means that we must include all the doubts, the
caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.On the other hand we are not just
scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to
see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our
working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To
do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's
imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage.
SO WE HAVE TO OFFER UP SCARY SCENARIOS, MAKE SIMPLIFIED, DRAMATIC
STATEMENTS, AND MAKE LITTLE MENTION OF ANY DOUBTS WE MIGHT HAVE...
EACH OF US HAS TO DECIDE WHAT THE RIGHT BALANCE IS BETWEEN BEING
EFFECTIVE AND BEING HONEST"
: >
: > I think those statements are nutty. He is the one who is giving us
: > groundless assertions. How about his comment about blind rabbits found
: > by hunters in Patagonia? Somebody needs to tell the scientists down
: > there. They haven't found one example of animals being blinded by excess
: > ultraviolet light in the Southern Hemisphere. Or the NASA press
:
:
: Right. To rebut Gore's statement, you went to southern Chile or Patagonia
: and talked to some hunters? If you go, maby you should talk to some
: biologists as well. Heightened skin cancer has been a problem for years in
: southern SA---- I personally haven't checked out the bunny quote.
Re-read my statement. Al Gore said hunters had found blind rabbits.
Scientists haven't found them. I would hope Al Gore, if he was so
concerned, would tell the biologists where to find them.
:
: > conference in 1992 saying an ozone hole MIGHT open up over the US that
: > spring. This was very big news, making the cover of Time.
: > Was it just a coincidence that Gore's book was published only
: > days before? He was, after all, head of the subcommittee that oversees
: > NASA's budget.
:
: And what has happened in the last four years? Antarctic Ozone depletion
: has considered to increase each year. Therefore, Gore wasn't "nutty" in
: making this prediction.
It's been four years and there is still no ozone hole over the US. Go
back and read the Time magazine article and see how accurate it really was.
Smokey
Bill Edison
In article <Pine.A32.3.92a.96051...@homer06.u.washington.edu.
"D. Braun" <dbr...@u.washington.edu. writes:
.
.
.
.On 12 May 1996, smokey williams wrote:
.
.. D. Braun (dbr...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
.. :
.. : . Second, "the Global Warming Hoax" is
.. : . : a fiction you chose to believe in; even though a concensus of scientists
.. : . : now agree that is occurring; for several years, scientists agreed that it
.. : . : was likely, but that they didn't know how much temperatures would rise, or
.. : . : when---that has changed.
.. : .
.. : . There is not a consensus of scientists on global warming.
.. :
.. : Wrong. The meaning of the word "concensus" does not neccessarily mean
.. : EVERY scientist, or to be more specific, every scientist working in the
.. : area of global warming. My statement is still true even if a minority of
.. : scinetists working in this area say it aint so. Use your Websters. By
.. : the way, scientists that aren't atmospheric chemists, glaciologists, or
.. : the builders of GCMs (complex models of global climate), some of the
.. : scientists working in the area, can also make an informed comment on
.. : global warming; all it takes is enough background on the problem and the
.. : use of the scientific method. I was implying, however, credentialed
.. : scientists directly working on global warming, in the less strict sense of
.. : the word consensus: 2b: the judgement arrived at by most of those
.. : concerned (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. 1976.).
..
.. I appreciate the definition of consensus. I will say now that a
.. consensus of scientists don't believe in global warming. Gallup
.. conducted a poll for the Institue of Science, Technology and Media where
.. they interviewed scientists ACTIVELY involved in global climate
.. research. 53% of these scientists said they don't believe global warming
.. has occured. 30% said they don't know. A whopping 17% believed that
.. global warming has occurred.
.
.Citing polls is useless to bolster an argument unless you print the
.questions asked, in their entirety---as welll as the sampling methods.
.Could you provide: Date of poll; number of scientists
. sampled and the pool from which they were sampled; questions asked. Your
.post listed conclusions about what the results meant--- without citing
.who made the conclusions. If you got the data third hand from a
.newspaper, say so.
.
.. Stephen Schneider, author of Global Warming, is quoted as
.. saying "Most climatologists do not yet claim beyond a resonable doubt
.. that the observed temperature records have been caused by the greenhouse
.. effect." Philip Abelson, former editor of Science, says that if global
.. warming is analyzed applying the customary standards of scientific
.. inquiry one must conclude there has been more hype than solid facts.
.
.Again, what is the context for this quote? And what does Abelson mean?
.That there was more hype in "the media"?, by "environmental groups"?, by
.Al Gore?, or by scientists? If he meant scientists, which ones?
.I have not read the scientific articles (if they are published yet)
.confiming that glbal warming due to anthropogenic activity is
.occurring--- but it was widely reported in such venues as the NY Times.
.
. .
.: . : .
.. : . Al Gore--" We now know that the automobile's cumulative impact on the
.. : . global enviroment is posing a moral threat to the security of every
.. : . nation that is more deadly than that of any military enemy we are ever
.. : . again likely to confront."
.. : .
.. : .
.. : . "Our civilization must be considered in some way dysfunctional. We
.. : . consume the Earth and its resources as a way to distract ourselves from
.. : . the pain."
.. : .
.. : . Al Gore is a nut. He proves it in his book. What scares me is that we
.. : . can have such a man so close to the Presidency.
.. : .
.. : . Smokey
.. :
.. : Care to actually make a counterpoint to these statements? Your response
.. : is logically the same as your "pure bullshit" one in response to a post
.. : documenting the R led charge to dismantle environmental policy---- no
.. : explanation, just groundless assertion. At least you only called him a
.. : nut---- although one that "spouts pure bullshit" no doubt.
.. :
.. : Dave Braun
..
.. I think those statements are nutty. He is the one who is giving us
.. groundless assertions. How about his comment about blind rabbits found
.. by hunters in Patagonia? Somebody needs to tell the scientists down
.. there. They haven't found one example of animals being blinded by excess
.. ultraviolet light in the Southern Hemisphere. Or the NASA press
.
.
.Right. To rebut Gore's statement, you went to southern Chile or Patagonia
.and talked to some hunters? If you go, maby you should talk to some
.biologists as well. Heightened skin cancer has been a problem for years in
.southern SA---- I personally haven't checked out the bunny quote.
.
.. conference in 1992 saying an ozone hole MIGHT open up over the US that
.. spring. This was very big news, making the cover of Time.
.. Was it just a coincidence that Gore's book was published only
.. days before? He was, after all, head of the subcommittee that oversees
.. NASA's budget.
.
.And what has happened in the last four years? Antarctic Ozone depletion
.has considered to increase each year. Therefore, Gore wasn't "nutty" in
.making this prediction.
In fact, he is nuts. His book relentlessly bashes humans for every
instance of "pollution", yet, up until at least 1994, the guy was
being chauferred around in a gas-guzzling R-12-equipped limo.
What's wrong with this picture?
.
.. Needless to say, NASA's budget doubled the next year. And surprise of
.. all surprises, no ozone hole was opened up over the US. Gore got a lot
.. of publicity though, and sold lots of books. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.
.
.He never said a hole had to open the next year. Global warming and ozone
.depletion are akin to the frog boiled alive starting in cool water
.analogy; most of us really are not much different from amphibians
This is the type of stuff you offered all the way thru your rantings.
Maximum subjectivity, stalling, clouding the issue, void of substance
or fact. If you look at the most recent edition of the US Atmospheric
&Aeronautical Studies, you'll notice the biggest Ozone hole was recorded
in the late 50's, well before CFC's were of substantial abundance.
Bill Edison
.
.. Smokey
..
.
. Dave Braun
.
Jym Dyer
=o= This thread has nothing to do with daily actions to help
the environment, which is what alt.save.the.earth is for.
If you want to engage in debate on environmental issues and
politics, that's what talk.environment is for. Please remove
alt.save.the.earth from any followups in this tread.
Thanks,
<_Jym_>
Mike Conway
>
> This is the type of stuff you offered all the way thru your rantings.
> Maximum subjectivity, stalling, clouding the issue, void of substance
> or fact. If you look at the most recent edition of the US Atmospheric
> &Aeronautical Studies, you'll notice the biggest Ozone hole was recorded
> in the late 50's, well before CFC's were of substantial abundance.
>
Halley Bay Antarctic Ozone Data
Mean October ozone column thickness, Dobson Units,
as measured at the British Antarctic Survey station
at Halley Bay (Latitude 76 south, Longitude 26 west)
1956 321 1971 299 1986 248
1957 330 1972 304 1987 163
1958 314 1973 289 1988 232
1959 311 1974 274 1989 164
1960 301 1975 308 1990 179
1961 317 1976 283 1991 155
1962 332 1977 251 1992 142
1963 309 1978 284 1993 111
1964 318 1979 261 1994 124
1965 281 1980 227 1995 138
1966 316 1981 237
1967 323 1982 234
1968 301 1983 210
1969 282 1984 201
1970 282 1985 196
Data from J. D. Shanklin, British Antarctic Survey, personal
communications, 1993-95.
smokey williams
Mike Conway (mcc....@mhs.adp.unc.edu) wrote:
:
:
: Here is a link with some summary and data from the 1995 IPCC report,
probably the
: most complete, recent, and broadest overview of the real state of
scientific thought on the subject.
: IPCC, as I recall, represents about 2,500 of the worlds leading atmospheric
researchers.
: You will notice the tentative nature of the reports conclusions, true...
but again, that
: is why science is the only way to understand these issues, because it
is constrained
: by pesky stuff like data. Some of that data is presented in graphic form to
mull over.
The IPCC is not a credible source of global warming simply because they
have been so wrong in the past. If you do a little research on the IPCC,
you will see how accurate they have been.
The IPCC uses models to generate their predictions. These models have
been proven to be inaccurate. Good models should be able to predict the
past. Yet these models haven't. According to R.A. Schiffer, "even the
most comprehensive global climate models greatly oversimplify or
misrepresent key climatic processes."
:
: Here is the link:
:
: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcps/papers/climchg/climate-change-update.html
:
:
: Here is a summary quote of the ipcc report:
: Average sea level is expected to rise as a result of thermal expansion of
the oceans and melting of glaciers and ice-sheets. The "best
: estimate" models
: project an increase in sea level of about 50 cm (20 inches) from the present
to 2100. The lowest projected sea level rise is about 15 cm (6
: inches), and
: the highest is projected at about 95 cm (37 inches) from the present to
2100. Sea level would continue to rise at a similar rate beyond 2100,
even if
: concentrations of greenhouse gases were stabilized by that time, and would
continue to do so even beyond the time of stabilization of global
: mean
: temperature. Regional sea level changes may differ from the global mean
value owing to land movement and ocean current changes.
:
Sea levels will not rise if global warming is occuring. By examining the
geological record over the past 130,000 years, the indication is that a
warmer climate leads to the growth of ice sheets rather than rising sea
levels.
: ================
:
:
: This is a far cry from your claims of 'hoax', like the whole
: idea originates from the 'psychic friends network'. Take a look at the
report and its
: conclusions (folks following the thread), compare it to how its being
painted, do the
: same with ozone depletion, extinction rates, habitat loss, etc.
And make sure you look up the past history of the IPCC predictions. Then
you can see how credible this last report is.
:
: There was some stuff about al gore following, and an implication that NASA
or NOAA reported some
: bogus study to help al gore sell his book, to be rewarded by a budget
increase....
:
: How about some science?
The study wasn't bogus, just way too premature to be released. Even
scientists from NASA were wondering why NASA "jumped the gun".
Eleanor Rotthoff
f...@deepthought.com (Frank Pittel) wrote:
>Mike Conway (mcc....@mhs.adp.unc.edu) wrote:
>: > House Speaker Newt Gingrich has taken very rational positions on
>: > environmental issues, unlike the wacko in the White House.
I confess that I have not studied environmental issues in sufficient
depth to make an intelligent evaluation of the pros and cons of
specific policy proposals. I am very mindful, however, of the wisdom
of the old saying that if you're taking fire from both extremes,
you're probably standing somewhere in the middle. With that in mind,
I post the following which I recently ran across concerning Newt
Gingrich and the environment.
The Relief Report
A newsletter covering regulatory reform efforts in Washington and
across America, published by The National Center for Public Policy
Research, 300 Eye St. NE #3, Washington, D.C. 20002 (202) 543-1286,
Fax (202) 543-4779. E-Mail Relie...@aol.com, Web
http://www.nationalcenter.inter.net.
Issue #40 * May 9,1996 * David A. Ridenour, Editor
**Eye on Newt: Ramblings of an Environmentally-Confused House Speaker
This exchange comes from the April 30 issue of the environmental
newswire Greenwire...
GREENWIRE: What do you think of [House GOP Whip] Tom DeLay's [R-TX]
efforts to repeal the phase-out of substances that deplete the ozone
layer?
SPEAKER GINGRICH: I think that Tom at times represents a different
view of the environment than I do.
Maybe that's because Representative DeLay represents the sound
science point of view.
Earlier this year, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) --man-made substances
used as refrigerants -- were banned on the assumption that CFCs are
responsible for thinning of the ozone layer in our upper atmosphere.
The ozone layer has been said to protect us from the sun's harmful
rays. But these assumptions are not based on science.
FACT: Malignant melanoma, a deadly form of cancer, is believed to be
linked to UV-A -- or ordinary blue sunlight -- which is not blocked by
the ozone layer. Ozone does block UV-B rays, but these rays have no
significant effect on incidence of melanoma.
FACT: The impact of CFCs on the ozone layer is not known. Changes in
weather patterns, the eruption of volcanos, changes in ultraviolet
output of the sun linked to the 10-11 year solar cycle and other
natural phenomena can inhibit the production of ozone.
Before defending a policy that will cost Americans billions of
dollars, perhaps the Speaker should find out whether or not it is
scientifically-based.
*The Problem With Speaker "Greenrich."
First, Newt Gingrich co-sponsored legislation to create a National
Institute on the Environment -- an agency that would inevitably
devolve into yet another government-funded body requiring the
"discovery" of new environmental risks -- both real and imagined -- to
justify its existence. Then he set-up a House task force on the
environment and appointed Representative Sherwood Boehlert -- the
leader of the opposition to the Clean Water Act Amendments -- to
co-chair it. Then the Speaker gave "environmental establishment
Republicans" equal representation on the task force even though they
are a tiny minority within the Republican caucus. Now, Newt Gingrich
is apparently going out of his way to insult key GOP constituencies --
and key GOP leaders -- who simply want to put people back into the
environmental equation. In a recent interview with the environmental
newswire Greenwire, for example, the House Speaker portrayed
westerners as environmentally-backward. Speaking on Representative
Richard Pombo's efforts to reform the Endangered Species Act, Gingrich
said: "I have to say on Pombo's behalf that he has been one of the
most patient and open to growth of any of the House subcommittee
chairs. As we have met with world-class biologists and botanists...
Rick has really tried to bridge the world of the rural Westerner to
the world of the scientist who deals with this." With Republicans
already under fire from Democrats for being "environmental
neanderthals," the last thing they need is fire from their own camp --
much less from their own Speaker.
Eleanor Rotthoff
"Everyone is a progressive by his own lights. That the
anointed believe that this label differentiates themselves
from other people is one of a number of symptoms of their
naive narcissism."
Thomas Sowell, The Vision of the Anointed.
Alan Bomberger
In article <319742...@mhs.adp.unc.edu>, Mike Conway
<mcc....@mhs.adp.unc.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Stephen Schneider, author of Global Warming, is quoted as
> > saying "Most climatologists do not yet claim beyond a resonable doubt
> > that the observed temperature records have been caused by the greenhouse
> > effect."
>
> Note the words..."beyond a reasonable doubt". I dont read that 'beyond
a reasonable doubt'
> in any responsible literature, true. That's what makes it responsible.....
>
> What I do read is that global climate change is an important issue, and that
> the mainstream consensus among scientists is that the influence of
anthropogenic
> greenhouse gases in global warming is being supported by mounting evidence.
Drawing conclusions about long term climate data from the brief time that we
have data sounds a bit silly. We have data for 100 years out of millions.
We are between ice ages and civilization won't be around 5,000 years from now
to worry about whether the climate got .1 degree hotter 10 years early.
Give it a rest.
--
Alan Bomberger | (408)-992-2748 | al...@oes.amdahl.com
Amdahl Corporation | Opinions are free, worth it, and not Amdahl's
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. - David Hume
Randy C. Eisensmith
al...@oes.amdahl.com (Alan Bomberger) wrote:
>In article <319742...@mhs.adp.unc.edu>, Mike Conway
><mcc....@mhs.adp.unc.edu> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Stephen Schneider, author of Global Warming, is quoted as
>> > saying "Most climatologists do not yet claim beyond a resonable doubt
>> > that the observed temperature records have been caused by the greenhouse
>> > effect."
>>
>> Note the words..."beyond a reasonable doubt". I dont read that 'beyond
>a reasonable doubt'
>> in any responsible literature, true. That's what makes it responsible.....
>>
>> What I do read is that global climate change is an important issue, and that
>> the mainstream consensus among scientists is that the influence of
>anthropogenic
>> greenhouse gases in global warming is being supported by mounting evidence.
>
>Drawing conclusions about long term climate data from the brief time that we
>have data sounds a bit silly. We have data for 100 years out of millions.
>We are between ice ages and civilization won't be around 5,000 years from now
>to worry about whether the climate got .1 degree hotter 10 years early.
Since your crystal ball is good enough to see 5,000 years into the
future, can you tell me who will win the World Series this year?
How about long-term interest rates? Up or down?
Maybe its all just God's will and we shouldn't really care about
tomorrow. If we fuck up the environment its really OK, 'cuz the glaciers
are on the way and we're all dogmeat. Sounds like Jim Watt's argument
that God will be really pissed off when (S)He reurns at the Second Coming
if we haven't chopped down every single tree and slaughtered every single
animal that (S)He put here for our use.
Dan Thornsberry
Alan Bomberger wrote:
>
> Drawing conclusions about long term climate data from the brief time that we
> have data sounds a bit silly. We have data for 100 years out of millions.
> We are between ice ages and civilization won't be around 5,000 years from now
> to worry about whether the climate got .1 degree hotter 10 years early.
We for SURE won't be around in 5000 years if the repugs
are allowed to destroy the environment. But chemical
companies continue to slip Nooty money to gain that end.
> --
> Alan Bomberger | (408)-992-2748 | al...@oes.amdahl.com
--
-------------------------------------------------------
"Please please please please please please
please please please please please please
please please please please please please
please please please please please please
please please please please please please
please please please please please please."
- Bob Dole to Colin Powell
-------------------------------------------------------
Overheard Republican prayer: Oh dear God, Please let
Bob Dole have a stroke BEFORE the convention.
-------------------------------------------------------
Newsweek Conventional Wisdom 5-13-96
Rush Limbaugh - down arrow-
Old CW: Spititual leader of the GOP revolution.
New CW: Just another Big fat Idiot.
-------------------------------------------------------
Wanted - Any person willing to lie to a jury. No
experience necessary. It would be beneficial if the
applicant had an intense hatred of the Clintons. All
interested parties should contact Mr. Kenneth Starr
through the Dole campaign office. If Mr. Starr is
unavailable, you can contact any New Jersey numbers
runner and the message will be passed on to Senator
D'Amato.
-------------------------------------------------------
Star witness - A person who will enhance your position
when they testify.
Starr witness - A person you hire to perjure themselves.
Libruul - A person smarter than yourself.
Commie - A libruul who has traveled outside of Georgia.
NRA life member - A person whose father is also their
grandfather.
Dittohead - A person who decides thinking is just too
strenuous.
Libertarian - Member of an elite group of 14,000. Would
be much higher if ex-cons could vote.
John Birchers - Would be Libertarians if they could vote.
--------------------------------------------------------
# 1 militiaman problem:
Government intrusion into their lives.
# 2 militiaman problem:
Cockroach infestation of their homes.
==========================================================
| | The GOP wants more guns |
| Dan Thornsberry | |
|tbe...@computek.net | and less education!!! |
| | |
|==========================================================|
| The victors called the revolution a triumph of liberty; |
| but now and then liberty, in the slogans of the strong, |
| means freedom from restraint in the exploitation of the |
| weak. -Will Durant |
==========================================================
Things you never learned in Sunday school:
-
The year was 964. His Holiness, Pope John XII, Gods
representative on Earth, was caught in the bed of a
married woman by her unfortunate husband. The outraged
cuckold beat the Pope so severely that he died of his
injuries three days later.
------------------------------------------------------------
"America, love it or leave it" - The Old Right
"America, blow it up" - The Newt Reich
"I am the GOP" - Timothy McVeigh
"Send us your insane, your violent, your racist" - Statue of Montana
"Give any senile old fool a credit card and he can
give you the illusion of prosperity" - Ronald Reagan
"Mommie, did the astrologer OK the press conference?" R. Reagan
"I might not be good enough for the US, but I'm
still good enough for Texas" - Phil Gramm
"The guvermint spens two much on edjication" - The GOP
"Come here little girl, I have something for you" - D. Koresh
"I am the NRA" - Timothy McVeigh
"OK son, If you see anyone coming, blast away" - R. Weaver
"Is the cash in the envelope?" - Newt Gingrich
"Yes sir, Mr. Gambino" - Alfonse D'Amato
"Yes sir, Mr. D'Amato" - Kenneth Starr
"When your fans are idiots, facts don't matter" - Rush Limbaugh
"Elect me because I'm too old to try later" - Bob Dole
"Yassuh Boss" - Clarence Thomas
Mike Conway
> The IPCC is not a credible source of global warming simply because they
> have been so wrong in the past. If you do a little research on the IPCC,
> you will see how accurate they have been.
>
> The IPCC uses models to generate their predictions. These models have
> been proven to be inaccurate. Good models should be able to predict the
> past. Yet these models haven't. According to R.A. Schiffer, "even the
> most comprehensive global climate models greatly oversimplify or
> misrepresent key climatic processes."
The models used have become increasingly more complex and take into
account more variables, such as aerosols and the action of clouds and
the oceans. Sure these things are in the early stages, and if you folks
out there follow the link, these things are addressed, ie, areas that
need further research, areas of weakness in terms of paucity of
historical data, difficulty in discerning human caused 'signal' from
natural variability, etc. That stuff is acknowledged.
So there are two tacks, 1) go after the data/theory with other theories
or data sets, this is how science works. - or - 2) go after the fact
that this area of research is inherantly difficult and complex, and
attack it because scientists are still trying to understand all of the
factors, call it a 'hoax', dismiss it out of hand. That is not science.
This whole 'side thread' on this topic spun off because the
whole global warming debate was dismissed out of hand as a 'hoax'. As an
example of 'wacky' environmentalists. IPCC represents the most
prestigious, most recent, and best effort to sift through a lot of
complicated stuff. (If there are other such international panels of
sceintists coming up with other conclusions, post them...I'd like to see
them myself, honestly). They themselves give an account of the problems
yet to be solved in determining the rate of warming and the attributions
that can be made.
Again, I bring this up for the other folks who are browsing/lurking.
Follow the link at look at some of the charts, graphs, etc. Get a feel
for what scientists are saying, its a lot different from what the talk
show hosts are saying. Look for other sources in peer-reviewed
scienntific liturature. I know that the journal "science" has had some
good coverage about the ups and downs of this whole debate, but they
sure dont dismiss it out of hand as a hoax!
These implications are made all the time about the environmental
movement. Its a tactic. Heres that link again:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcps/papers/climchg/climate-change-update.html
At least pop over and take a look, do you see intellectual dishonesty?
Decide for yourself and head to the library! Pop out the
sci.environment and see if you can find some sceintists who might give
you their opinion, etc.
Alan Bomberger
In article <319A6F...@computek.net>, Dan Thornsberry
<tbe...@computek.net> wrote:
> Alan Bomberger wrote:
> >
> > Drawing conclusions about long term climate data from the brief time that we
> > have data sounds a bit silly. We have data for 100 years out of millions.
> > We are between ice ages and civilization won't be around 5,000 years
from now
> > to worry about whether the climate got .1 degree hotter 10 years early.
>
> We for SURE won't be around in 5000 years if the repugs
> are allowed to destroy the environment. But chemical
> companies continue to slip Nooty money to gain that end.
One hesitates to respond to someone with a .sig that represents
his entire knowledge base.. but you can tell the lack of
argument by the use of words like "destroy" "gut", etc. As if
the only alternatives are A: cancel all manufacturing and return
to living naked in caves (oh but doesn't that pollute the streams
with human excrement....) B: reproduce the industrial wasteland
of Eastern Europe.
I am glad that life is that simple for you Dan, but then your
.sig tells us that you are a simple fellow.
--
Alan Bomberger | (408)-992-2748 | al...@oes.amdahl.com
smokey williams
Alan Bomberger (al...@oes.amdahl.com) wrote:
: > We for SURE won't be around in 5000 years if the repugs
: > are allowed to destroy the environment. But chemical
: > companies continue to slip Nooty money to gain that end.
:
: One hesitates to respond to someone with a .sig that represents
: his entire knowledge base.. but you can tell the lack of
: argument by the use of words like "destroy" "gut", etc. As if
: the only alternatives are A: cancel all manufacturing and return
: to living naked in caves (oh but doesn't that pollute the streams
: with human excrement....) :
: --
You might be on to something, Alan. If we could just think of another
way to let the wackos see naked women, this whole enviromental "crisis"
will be solved.
Smokey
Arvind
The only problem with liberals on their environmental views, my dear yokel, is that
they regard it for the same short-term ends as conservatives--for our society's
benefit. According to contemporary environmental views, the environment should (or
shouldn't) be given proper respect because our economic/moral/social interests are at
stake.
My only point here is that the environment should be protected--by which I mean the
"sustained" development path suggested by the UN and its conventions--for its own
sake. The conclusion I've drawn (and I fear it may be sslightly visceral) is that
judeo-Christian ethics place relatively little respect in life, when compared to
Eastern cultures. Descrying against killing for sport, recklessly destroying
habitats, and eating meat is considered radical, anti-American, etc.
Now let me address the economic approach to environmental stability.
1. Take the hypothetical example of beef. California more specifically. While
cattle ranching in that state is only 1/2000 of the total economy, this industry uses
almost 1/6 of the water requirements of the state. Cattle, on top of it, are
inefficient sources of food, not being indigenous to the Americas. If, for example,
cattle was replaced with "bison" ranching, not only would the animals be more
productive (as far as returns on food consumption), but bison meat is must more tasty
and nutritious than cattle. Point: Rarely do common sense and natural lawsay two
different things.
2.The negative externalities of businesses concerning the environment, hurt society
and people in general. Not only am I referring to short-term cases like dumping
wastes in rivers or cutting doen rain forests, but other, seemingly innocuous,
environmentalist-blabber concerns. Why should we preserve the spotted owl and avoid
recless logging practices in old-growth forests? Any significant economic
repercussions? Not really? Moral concerns? Yeah. Most importantly, though, killing
one species to preserve jobs and our consumption-oriented way of life, gives us the
leeway to kill more. And more. And more. It's a simple concept--the earth can only
support so many living things. The more humans there are, the less there would have
to be of other species. The less the biodiversity--or the deviation from what nature
set--the more likely the inevitable natural, and social, disasters are to increase
and hit us in the future (starvation, pollution, crime, etc.).
3.The pure moral argument. What indication is there that humans are superior to
animals. Does Make-a-Wish have the right to send a dying (supposedly) boy to take
another life, whether it be a bear, a man, a frog, or an ant? What is this ranking
system Christian ethics has developed to differentiate and classify life according to
importance. If I sound like I'm coming from lala land, maybe I;m just looking at it
through the eyes of another culture.
If we can do something to protect "American heritage," and to avoid what is happening
to so many other people around the world today, why don't we do it?
Arvind
**If there's any part of my argument that you feel needs explanation or expansion,
feel free to tell me, since I'm sitting here writing at 12 midnight.
Arvind
Arvind
Arvind
D. Braun
On Wed, 15 May 1996, Mike Conway wrote:
> > The IPCC is not a credible source of global warming simply because they
> > have been so wrong in the past. If you do a little research on the IPCC,
> > you will see how accurate they have been.
> >
> > The IPCC uses models to generate their predictions. These models have
> > been proven to be inaccurate. Good models should be able to predict the
> > past. Yet these models haven't. According to R.A. Schiffer, "even the
> > most comprehensive global climate models greatly oversimplify or
> > misrepresent key climatic processes."
>
> The models used have become increasingly more complex and take into
> account more variables, such as aerosols and the action of clouds and
> the oceans. Sure these things are in the early stages, and if you folks
> out there follow the link, these things are addressed, ie, areas that
> need further research, areas of weakness in terms of paucity of
> historical data, difficulty in discerning human caused 'signal' from
> natural variability, etc. That stuff is acknowledged.
>
> So there are two tacks, 1) go after the data/theory with other theories
> or data sets, this is how science works. - or - 2) go after the fact
> that this area of research is inherantly difficult and complex, and
> attack it because scientists are still trying to understand all of the
> factors, call it a 'hoax', dismiss it out of hand. That is not science.
I was on this thread early on; if I may add my two cents: attacking
global warming, the species extinction crisis, etc. also rests on the
mistaken belief, engendered in the public by politicians, the media, and
fundamentalist religion that there are simple yes or no answers. This
falls on fertile ground because Americans have a low level of scientific
literacy, and few understand the basic logical framework of science---
which requires all hypotheses to be falsifiable to avoid dogma and
circular arguments. This leads to conclusions being stated as, "outcome
"x" is probable, based on what is currently known". A scientific
conclusion never states something as "proven", for all time to follow; all
it says is that based on current evidence, the probability of no
relationship between certain causative variables is very low. This is
based on both statistical evidence, and an understanding of the variables
as to the likelihood that they could cause the effect observed---so that
avoiding a finding of "causation", perhaps, between sunspots and cancer,
because a paticular data set is correlated statistically (which is not likely,
but possible) is assured.
I am still reminded of the artist's rendition of "scientists" around a
table angrily gesticulating at one another---- with the caption:
"scientists can't agree on the theory pf evolution"---- in a Jehovah's
Witness tract. They miss the point, whether they are Jehovah's Witnesses,
or simply ignorant people with an ideological axe to grind. Now, people
that know better, such as politicians with ready access to reams of
scientific reports have no buisness debunking the importance of global
warming, species extinction, the human population explosion, etc.; one
wonders about their motivations---- are they staking their carreers on
willful propaganda, for the sake of re-election and pay-back to industries
with an economic stake on the issue that contributed heavily to their
campaigns or Party? But I digress...
Dave Braun
Dennis McClain-Furmanski
On 05-18-96, rsu...@goodnet.com wrote:
> The only problem with liberals on their environmental views, my dear
> yokel, is t hat
> they regard it for the same short-term ends as conservatives--for our
> society's
> benefit. According to contemporary environmental views, the
> environment should (or
> shouldn't) be given proper respect because our economic/moral/social
> interests a re at
> stake.
You sure look sofuckingphisticated, mixing up your space bar and return
key like that.
Now try UsInG yOuR ShIfT kEy every other time. The imagery will go
perfectly with the rest of your bullshit. Like a ransom note made out of
cut-up newspaper letters from someone on the little school bus.
* 2qwk! 2.0 * Grub first, then ethics.
--
Doktor DynaSoar Iridium -- dyn...@infi.net -- Punctuator of Evolution
smokey williams
Mike Conway (mcc....@mhs.adp.unc.edu) wrote:
: > The IPCC uses models to generate their predictions. These models have
: > been proven to be inaccurate. Good models should be able to predict the
: > past. Yet these models haven't. According to R.A. Schiffer, "even the
: > most comprehensive global climate models greatly oversimplify or
: > misrepresent key climatic processes."
:
: The models used have become increasingly more complex and take into
: account more variables, such as aerosols and the action of clouds and
: the oceans. Sure these things are in the early stages, and if you folks
: out there follow the link, these things are addressed, ie, areas that
: need further research, areas of weakness in terms of paucity of
: historical data, difficulty in discerning human caused 'signal' from
: natural variability, etc. That stuff is acknowledged.
The models are getting better, but they are still crude and primative.
Too many enviros are putting complete faith in these models when they
demand wholesale policy changes in this country and others. Compare this
with weather forecasting. How often are long range forecasts (I'm
talking around 90 days) when forecasting above/below average rainfall?
:
: So there are two tacks, 1) go after the data/theory with other theories
: or data sets, this is how science works. - or - 2) go after the fact
: that this area of research is inherantly difficult and complex, and
: attack it because scientists are still trying to understand all of the
: factors, call it a 'hoax', dismiss it out of hand. That is not science.
I am not dismissing global warming out of hand. But the scientific
evidence says that there is no greenhouse crisis and no basis to the
claim that we have to act now if we are going to reduce the greenhouse
threat. Al Gore proposed in his book a $100 billion "Global Marshall"
plan. Why?
:
: This whole 'side thread' on this topic spun off because the
: whole global warming debate was dismissed out of hand as a 'hoax'. As an
: example of 'wacky' environmentalists. IPCC represents the most
: prestigious, most recent, and best effort to sift through a lot of
: complicated stuff. (If there are other such international panels of
: sceintists coming up with other conclusions, post them...I'd like to see
: them myself, honestly). They themselves give an account of the problems
: yet to be solved in determining the rate of warming and the attributions
: that can be made.
I don't hold the IPCC in the high regard you do. The IPCC is an
organization whose existance is tied to the belief that global warming is
a major threat to the planet. Take away that belief, and you take away
the IPCC.
Robert Balling wrote a good book on global warming called "the Heated
Debate: Greenhouse Prediction Versus Climate Reality", and co-authored a
book called "Interactions of Desertification and Climate". If you want
to know the unbiased facts, read his books and articles.
Smokey
smokey williams
Distribution:
D. Braun (dbr...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
Now, people
: that know better, such as politicians with ready access to reams of
: scientific reports have no buisness debunking the importance of global
: warming, species extinction, the human population explosion, etc.; one
: wonders about their motivations---- are they staking their carreers on
: willful propaganda, for the sake of re-election and pay-back to industries
: with an economic stake on the issue that contributed heavily to their
: campaigns or Party? But I digress...
:
: Dave Braun
The only propaganda being spewed out if by the enviromental movement.
Look at the amount of money environmental groups have to spend on
misinformation. The top ten green groups (Greenpeace, NRDC) collected
$400 million in contributions in 1990. The Demos and republicans
combined raised only $40 million that same year. So who has the deep
pockets? If you want to talk about paybacks, look to the Vice President.
The evidence shows that there is probably no greenhouse crisis, and
definitely no population explosion. We have to wonder about your
motivations by pushing this agenda in the face of solid science.
Smokey
Jim Glass
In article <319D75...@goodnet.com>, rsu...@goodnet.com says...
>
>The only problem with liberals on their environmental views, my dear yokel, is that
>they regard it for the same short-term ends as conservatives--for our society's
>benefit. According to contemporary environmental views, the environment should (or
>shouldn't) be given proper respect because our economic/moral/social interests are at
>stake.
I know it causes you great pain, but the FACT is that human beings
happen to be the boss biped on this here planet; WE MAKE THE RULES.
More importantly, all -VALUES- are human values. NOTHING has value
unless a person gives it a value. Trees and spotted owls are inherently
VALUELESS; they have only that value we decide to bestow on them.
That this elementary point must be stated explicitly is an indicator
of how far into illogic and unreason we have slipped--especially you
tree-huggers.
>
>My only point here is that the environment should be protected--by which I mean the
>"sustained" development path suggested by the UN and its conventions--for its own
>sake.
Gee, that's what the Unabomber said...
>The conclusion I've drawn (and I fear it may be sslightly visceral) is that
>judeo-Christian ethics place relatively little respect in life, when compared to
>Eastern cultures. Descrying against killing for sport, recklessly destroying
>habitats, and eating meat is considered radical, anti-American, etc.
Why, yes; it is. The stuff is OURS; we own it. We get to say how it is
used. Or how it is disposed. Including "habitats", "meat", etc.
>
>Now let me address the economic approach to environmental stability.
>
>1. Take the hypothetical example of beef. California more specifically. While
>cattle ranching in that state is only 1/2000 of the total economy, this industry uses
>almost 1/6 of the water requirements of the state. Cattle, on top of it, are
>inefficient sources of food, not being indigenous to the Americas. If, for example,
>cattle was replaced with "bison" ranching, not only would the animals be more
>productive (as far as returns on food consumption), but bison meat is must more tasty
>and nutritious than cattle. Point: Rarely do common sense and natural lawsay two
>different things.
And so what you want to do is use the power of government to -FORCE- people to
stop growing, selling, and eating meat. You want to force people to become
vegitarians, because only YOU know the one true way to live. I can't wait until
the Protein StormTroopers arrive at my door.
>
>2.The negative externalities of businesses concerning the environment, hurt society
>and people in general. Not only am I referring to short-term cases like dumping
>wastes in rivers or cutting doen rain forests, but other, seemingly innocuous,
>environmentalist-blabber concerns. Why should we preserve the spotted owl and avoid
>recless logging practices in old-growth forests? Any significant economic
>repercussions? Not really? Moral concerns? Yeah. Most importantly, though, killing
>one species to preserve jobs and our consumption-oriented way of life, gives us the
>leeway to kill more. And more. And more. It's a simple concept--the earth can only
>support so many living things. The more humans there are, the less there would have
>to be of other species. The less the biodiversity--or the deviation from what nature
>set--the more likely the inevitable natural, and social, disasters are to increase
>and hit us in the future (starvation, pollution, crime, etc.).
Human lives are worth more than those of animals. Care to dispute me? You probably
will. Which only shows how foolish you are. Ethical and Moral Concerns for the
poor spotted owl? Wonderful; who cares how many humans are put out of work? Humans,
in your view, are the LOWEST on the totem pole--the ones who can always be
sacrificed for some weed or worm. OK; what about the lowly AIDS virus. Morality
dictates that IT has a right to live, eh? So let's stop all those mean scientists
who are working day and night to kill it.
Cockroaches, too. The humble cockroach has as much of a right to live as you do.
Let's lock up anybody who kills a bug, and outlaw RAID, right?
Don't forget bacteria; my fave is the one that was publicized as the "flesh eater"
a year or so ago. If it takes hold in YOUR leg, let it be: it's only trying to
survive, after all.
>
>3.The pure moral argument. What indication is there that humans are superior to
>animals.
If you can ask this question,you are beyond reason. OK, I'll try. Humans are
the only animals who can reason. Humans are the only ones who can take
responsibility for their acts, and therefore they are the only ones who have
RIGHTS (the inalienable sort). Humans make the rules; humans set the values;
humans are (for better or worse) the BOSS around here; better get used to it.
Why are humans superior to animals? BECAUSE WE SAY WE ARE and we can back it
up.
>Does Make-a-Wish have the right to send a dying (supposedly) boy to take
>another life, whether it be a bear, a man, a frog, or an ant?
Sure. Yup. You betcha.
>What is this ranking
>system Christian ethics has developed to differentiate and classify life according to
>importance. If I sound like I'm coming from lala land, maybe I;m just looking at it
>through the eyes of another culture.
You sound like you're coming from LALA land.
>
>If we can do something to protect "American heritage," and to avoid what is happening
>to so many other people around the world today, why don't we do it?
>
Because we are sane and rational?
>Arvind
>
>**If there's any part of my argument that you feel needs explanation or expansion,
>feel free to tell me, since I'm sitting here writing at 12 midnight.
You got it.
Jim Glass
earthfirst
Arvind wrote:
> 3.The pure moral argument. What indication is there that humans are superior to
> animals. Does Make-a-Wish have the right to send a dying (supposedly) boy to take
> another life, whether it be a bear, a man, a frog, or an ant? What is this ranking
> system Christian ethics has developed to differentiate and classify life according to
> importance. If I sound like I'm coming from lala land, maybe I;m just looking at it
> through the eyes of another culture.
If only more people realised this, rather than followed the
usual self indulgent planetary managers line, things would be
a lot better. The main reason I finally inmmersed myself in
the 'green' movement was because I was sick to death of
managers, and now here they are again.
As far as the human superiorithy thing goes, I have some
research if any one is interested, also would be grateful for
any articles on the subject. (only ones that show we aren't
superior, if I want the other type I only need to go to the
nearest zombie 'newsagents' for a trolley full)
Andy
--
http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/earthfirst.html
South Downs EF!
Prior House
6, Tilbury Place
Brighton BN2 2GY
UK
earthfirst
RockinJill
FizzTwo writes:
>Voltaire writes:
>>Gingrich Puts his Stock in Stockman
>>Alan Bernstein of The Houston Chronicle, May 19, 1996.
>>Between praising "citizen Bob Dole"
>(until several days ago widely known as "Beltway Bob Dole")
>>and slamming President Clinton,
>>U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich joined other Republican leaders
>>here Saturday in casting U.S. Rep. Steve Stockman's re-election
>>campaign as a battle against liberals and unions.
>>Gingrich predicted an "uprising" by Republican union members against
>>labor leaders planning to spend money on campaigns to defeat Stockman
>>and other GOP congressmen across the country.
>>"An amazing percentage of the union members are with us," Gingrich
>>told reporters after speaking to hundreds of supporters at a fund-
>>raising rally for Stockman in the Galleria area.
>What's amazing is that ANY union members vote for the rightists. Infact,
>considering that the goal of the Republicans is to look out for the
>interests of the very wealthy and very powerful, it is amazing that the
>right-wing has been able to use their phony and divisive issues (like
>racism, religion, xenophobia, etc) to trick working-class people into
>voting for them at all.
>>Stockman of Friendswood defeated longtime Democratic incumbent
>>Jack Brooks in 1994 and is being challenged this year by Democrat
>>Nick Lampson of Beaumont, the former Jefferson County tax assessor-
>>collector.
>>The district covers parts of east Harris County and all of Galveston,
>>Chambers and Jefferson counties.
>>Along with the national political parties and organizations on
>>both sides of the gun rights and abortion rights issues, labor
>>unions are expected to spend money campaigning for their choice
>>in the 9th Congressional District, which is dotted with unionized
>>refineries and petrochemical plants.
>>Gingrich warned that unions will try to convince voters that Stockman
>>and other Gingrich-led Republicans are trying to cut Medicare benefits
>>when in fact they are trying to slow its growth.
>>Gingrich charged that Clinton is engaging in "shameful, disgraceful
>>behavior" by joining an effort to scare elderly voters into opposing
>>Republican reforms.
>>Texas GOP Chairman Tom Pauken told the rally that Stockman is "the
>>No. 1 target of the left in this country," and Harris County GOP
>>chief Gary Polland said Stockman has been marked for defeat by
>>"the big labor bosses."
>I pray Pauken is correct but I doubt he is. I'm sure people who care
about
>the interests of working men and women would love to see a social
>neanderthal like Stockman lose his seat, but there are even worse
>Repugs than him--
>Gingrich himself, not to mention monsters like Jesse Helms,
>Bob Dornan and Helen Chenoweth.
>>Noting that approximately 30 demonstrators had gathered outside
>>the rally site earlier in the day, Stockman declared, "I'm here,
>>I'm in your face, and I'm Republican. Get used to it, I'm a freshman!"
>Thankfully he didn't bring any guns.
>>The demonstrators represented environmental groups and other causes
>>opposed to legislation backed by the Republican congressional
>>majority.
>>One of Gingrich's recent campaign trips to Texas was for U.S. Rep.
>>Greg Laughlin of West Columbia. Laughlin lost the Republican primary
>>runoff after switching from the Democratic Party last year but
>>was supported by a host of elected GOP leaders.
>>Gingrich said, however, that Stockman is among 160 Republican House
>>members seeking his campaign help, along with about 100 GOP >>candidates
challenging Democratic incumbents.
>>"They believe in their districts (that it is) helpful to have us," he
said.
>Democratic campaign strategists have offered to pay for Gingrich's
>airfares to bring him to speak in every district in the country. He is
>the most despised man in American politics and his approval ratings are
>similar to another right-wing extremist, Timothy McVeigh, also a
>Stockman supporter.
I heard that Gingrich has patched up his differences with crazy Helen
Chenoweth (R-ID) and that he has now decided he will campaign for her
afterall. Idaho is one of two or three states where Gingrich's positive
ratings are above 30%. One of Gingrich's campaign organizers has ruled
out Newt arriving in a helicopter, fearing than an overly rambunctious
Chenoweth supporter might shoot it down, thinking it was filled with
Russian troops disguised as UN soldiers taking over a national park.
Democratic congressional candidates across the country are praying
that Newt will visit their districts. The majority of Republican
congressmen have asked him to stay out of their campaigns and not to visit
their states. (Has he become what Perot referred to as the "one-eyed aunt
in the basement?")
D. Braun
Mr. Smoke: You simply prove the maxim that everyone is entitled to an
opinion. Flame on.
Dave Braun
lurch
j...@deltanet.com (Jim Glass) wrote:
>In article <319D75...@goodnet.com>, rsu...@goodnet.com says...
>>shouldn't) be given proper respect because our economic/moral/social interests are at
>>stake.
>I know it causes you great pain, but the FACT is that human beings
>happen to be the boss biped on this here planet; WE MAKE THE RULES.
>More importantly, all -VALUES- are human values. NOTHING has value
>unless a person gives it a value. Trees and spotted owls are inherently
>VALUELESS; they have only that value we decide to bestow on them.
If you are serious about this, you are one sadly confused,
Limbaugh-brainwashed valueless life form yourself.
I'm not going to bother to assail your apparent belief in the sanctity
and justifiablity of inter-species imperialism. Instead, I'd like to
ask you a question. Do you not think there will someday be a price to
pay for our heedless environmental exploitation and destruction? Do
you believe we can somehow live apart from all the other "valueless"
life forms that get in the way of our endless highways, apartments,
airports and gargantuan urban hives? I don't. I believe that, whether
we like it or not like it or not, man is never any further from the
system that spawned him than his next meal, or for that matter, his
next breath of air. If you think we can survive in the manner we have
become accustomed in the treeless, polluted and biologically decimated
world we are actively working (and have already begun) to bring about,
then you understand little about the precariousness of the human
position, and are comforting yourself with corporate psuedoscience,
rationalizations and the pithy talk radio bromides you have parrotted
here.
You are right about one thing. Man is the dominant life form on this
planet. And, yes, human power being wielded without conscience or any
sense of larger responsibility is so common that it has become almost
defensible, especially in the minds of those tragically distanced from
and confused by the natural world. But humans also have historically
had the distressing habit of shitting in their own nests. We make a
mess here, so we move there. Well, we are about out of room. Read
about human colonization and eventual self-extermination on Easter
Island if you want a good, time-compressed and telling microcosm of
man's long-term global environmental degradation, as well as an
inkling of what may well be our eventual fate as a species.
The lifeforms on the Earth have been kept in balance for millions of
years by unseen and poorly understood forces. The general rule,
however, is that animals that take up more space than they should are
culled in great numbers. I have a healthy respect for these forces,
and try to keep our own puny and presumptiously applied "powers" in
perspective. We are intelligent apes, nothing more. Take away the
supermarkets and our toys, tools and gizmos (that exist in the form
they do because of incremental improvements over thousands of years of
human history) and most of us lack the instincts and physical
capabilities to survive even a few weeks. God help the lot of us if
the man-made systems (which you seem to believe will function in
perpetuity) ever even sputter, let alone collapse.
If we make the planet sick, it'll make us sick
But I know anything that flys in the face of what you see as our our
divinely granted rights to accumulate, procreate and piss away
resources "just because we can,dammit" is tree-hugging hogwash, right?
Someone has done a fine job.
>>My only point here is that the environment should be protected--by which I mean the
>>"sustained" development path suggested by the UN and its conventions--for its own
>>sake.
>Gee, that's what the Unabomber said...
>>The conclusion I've drawn (and I fear it may be sslightly visceral) is that
>>judeo-Christian ethics place relatively little respect in life, when compared to
>>Eastern cultures. Descrying against killing for sport, recklessly destroying
>>habitats, and eating meat is considered radical, anti-American, etc.
>Why, yes; it is. The stuff is OURS; we own it. We get to say how it is
>used. Or how it is disposed. Including "habitats", "meat", etc.
>>
>>Now let me address the economic approach to environmental stability.
>>
>>1. Take the hypothetical example of beef. California more specifically. While
>>different things.
>And so what you want to do is use the power of government to -FORCE- people to
>stop growing, selling, and eating meat. You want to force people to become
>vegitarians, because onat least if they are aware of the fa
>
I don't believe in involving the government in this stuff. I would
like to believe that humans would have enough sense not to saw off the
limbs they are sitting on, and to do what is necessary for the long
term survival for all major species, human and otherwise, (for, like
it or not, our fortunes may well be the same) at least if they were
provided with the facts. If you want to use such naivety as an
example of at least one instance where I was foolish as you, you are
free to. Guilty as charged.
>>
>>set--the more likely the inevitable natural, and social, disasters are to increase
>>and hit us in the future (starvation, pollution, crime, etc.).
>Human lives are worth more than those of animals. Care to dispute me? You probably
>will. Which only shows how foolish you are. Ethical and Moral Concerns for the
>poor spotted owl? Wonderful; who cares how many humans are put out of work? Humans,
>in your view, are the LOWEST on the totem pole--the ones who can always be
>sacrificed for some weed or worm.
On what are you basing this relative value scale? Instinct? The
storybook rantings attributed to your chosen diety and his devout
human scribes? Fact is, humans have no more rights or instrinsic value
than any other animal, at least if one is to judge from the way those
same humans exploit and murder those weaker than themselves.. Many a
human child has been blown to perdition because the temporary
suspension of Christian morality and the fervent belief in the
instrinsic value of human life was necessary to achieve some so-called
"greater good." Individuals can be sacrified, murdered, deprived of
rights, etc, when necessary. The trick is to give internecine
extermination a fancy name like "The Great War," "Operation Asskick,"
etc., then humans can take part in and support the killing of other
people without compromising their elaborate and phony moral
constructs. Even though the greater good they seek through such
efforts is often something like a continuing supply of cheap oil to
flagrantly waste.
Tell me, did you oppose the Gulf War? Seems you would have had little
choice, given your aforementioned and selective reverence for the
lives of humans.
Individuals, animal and human, have only the rights that have been
allocated to them by systems constructed by other life forms, or those
that they can take by force. I just happen to believe our so-called
rights can be taken away by forces of non-human origin, and it might
be wise to consider providing for a environmental "greater good" even
if it meant sacrificing human individuals. Why would this be any less
morally defensible than the war-related deaths of almost 100 million
people in the last century, which resulted largely from greed and
quests for far less important prizes?
>OK; what about the lowly AIDS virus. Morality
>dictates that IT has a right to live, eh? So let's stop all those mean scientists
>who are working day and night to kil
>Cockroaches, too. The humble cockroach has as much of a right to live as you do.
>Let's lock up anybody who kills a bug, and outlaw RAID, right?
reductio ad absurdum. Cheap, childish, and not worth a refutation.
Don't worry about the bugs. They can take care of themselves. They
will be here long enough to piss on our ashes. And I expect we will be
seeing some new, much more hardy strains of virus soon; prolific
little devils that will be able to hold their own against the pop-gun
arsenal of modern medicine.
>Don't forget bacteria; my fave is the one that was publicized as the "flesh eater"
>a year or so ago. If it takes hold in YOUR leg, let it be: it's only trying to
>survive, after all.
>>
>>3.The pure moral argument. What indication is there that humans are superior to
>>animals.
>If you can ask this question,you are beyond reason. OK, I'll try. Humans are
>the only animals who can reason.
Define reason.
>Humans are the only ones who can take
>responsibility for their acts, and therefore they are the only ones who have
>RIGHTS (the inalienable sort).
>Humans make the rules; humans set the values;
>humans are (for better or worse) the BOSS around here; better get used to it.
Inalienable rights do not exist. They are abstract political concepts
that exist, even in partial form, only as long as their existence
suits OUR BOSSES.
>Why are humans superior to animals? BECAUSE WE SAY WE ARE and we can back it
>up.
Well, who the hell can argue with that?
Maybe we are making the rules for now. But we may soon have to play a
new game. And this time we may not get to write the rulebook.
>>Does Make-a-Wish have the right to send a dying (supposedly) boy to take
>>another life, whether it be a bear, a man, a frog, or an ant?
>Sure. Yup. You betcha.
>You sound like you're coming from LALA land.
damn good
>>
>>If we can do something to protect "American heritage," and to avoid what is happening
>>to so many other people around the world today, why don't we do it?
>>
>Because we are sane and rational?
Maybe because we are spiritually bankrupt, obsessive, materialistic
consumerist junkies, selfish buffoons obsessed with that which is
worthless, indifferent to that which is precious, clinging tenaciously
to a wasteful way of life propped up by a moribund political and
economic system, and bolstered mentally by the rantings of folks that
find it profitable in the short term to tell us what we want to hear,
whether it is the truth or not.
Who and what we are today will be reviled and seen as incredibly
ignorant by whomever ultimately inherits the legacy of folks who seek
to elevate "scorched earth" ecological policies from mere
greed-motivated and short-sighted depredations to "progress" and
"economic expansion," that we have not only the right but the duty to
continue.
I hope you are ready for the world that comes of all of this. Someday
you may get to find out how useless most of the elements which, in the
aggregate, comprise your concept of "human superiority" are. Society
breaks down in a hurry after even small scale calamities (like
Hurrican Andrew), and sooner or later the so-called nonexistent
threats of global warming, deforestation, overfishing and
overpopulation will cause our economic and social systems to implode
like a rotten pumpkin.
That's when you will have to play the new game. So-called inferior
animals already know how. Do you?
lurch
lurch
>>j...@deltanet.com (Jim Glass) wrote:
>>In article <319D75...@goodnet.com>, rsu...@goodnet.com says...
>>>shouldn't) be given proper respect because our economic/moral/social interests are at
>>>stake.
>>I know it causes you great pain, but the FACT is that human beings
>>happen to be the boss biped on this here planet; WE MAKE THE RULES.
>More importantly, all -VALUES- are human values. NOTHING has value
>unless a person gives it a value. Trees and spotted owls are inherently
>VALUELESS; they have only that value we decide to bestow on them.
If you are serious about this, you have my sympathies.
I'm not going to bother to assail your apparent belief in the sanctity
and justifiablity of inter-species imperialism. Instead, I'd like to
ask you a question. Do you not think there will someday be a price to
pay for our heedless environmental exploitation and destruction? Do
you believe we can somehow live apart from all the other worthless
life forms that get in the way of our endless highways, apartments,
airports and gargantuan urban hives? I don't. I believe that, whether
we like it or not like it or not, man is never any further from the
system that spawned him than his next meal, or for that matter, his
next breath of air. If you think we can survive in the manner we have
become accustomed in the treeless, polluted and biologically decimated
world we are actively working (and have already begun) to bring about,
then you understand little about the precariousness of the human
position, and are merely comforting yourself with corporate
psuedoscience, rationalizations and the pithy talk radio bromides you
have parrotted here.
You are right about one thing. Man is the dominant life form on this
planet. And, yes, human power being wielded without conscience or any
sense of larger responsibility is so common that it has become almost
defensible, especially in the minds of those tragically distanced from
and confused by the natural world. But humans also have historically
had the distressing habit of shitting in their own nests. We make a
mess here, so we move there. Well, we are about out of room. Read
about human colonization and eventual self-extermination on Easter
Island if you want a good, time-compressed and telling microcosm of
man's long-term global environmental degradation, as well as an
inkling of what may well be our eventual fate as a species.
The myriad lifeforms on the Earth have been kept in balance for
millions of years by unseen and poorly understood forces. The general
rule, however, is that animals that take up more space than they
should are culled in great numbers. I have a healthy respect for these
forces, and try to keep our own puny and presumptiously applied
"powers" in perspective. We are intelligent apes, nothing more. Take
away the supermarkets and our toys, tools and gizmos (that exist in
the form they do because of incremental improvements over thousands of
years of human history) and most of us lack the instincts and
physical capabilities to survive even a few weeks. God help the lot of
us if the man-made systems (which you seem to believe will function in
perpetuity) ever even sputter, let alone collapse.
If we make the planet sick, it'll make us sick
But I know anything that flys in the face of what you see as our our
divinely granted rights to accumulate, indiscriminately procreate and
piss away resources "just because we can,dammit" is tree-hugging
hogwash, right?
Someone has done a fine job.
>>>My only point here is that the environment should be protected--by which I mean the
>>>"sustained" development path suggested by the UN and its conventions--for its own
>>>sake.
>Gee, that's what the Unabomber said...
>>>>>The conclusion I've drawn (and I fear it may be sslightly visceral) is that
>>>>>judeo-Christian ethics place relatively little respect in life, when compared to
>>>>>Eastern cultures. Descrying against killing for sport, recklessly destroying
>>>>>habitats, and eating meat is considered radical, anti-American, etc.
>>Why, yes; it is. The stuff is OURS; we own it. We get to say how it is
>>used. Or how it is disposed. Including "habitats", "meat", etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now let me address the economic approach to environmental stability.
>>>>>
>>>>>1. Take the hypothetical example of beef. California more specifically. While
>>>>>different things.
>>And so what you want to do is use the power of government to -FORCE- people to
>>stop growing, selling, and eating meat. You want to force people to become
>>vegitarians, because onat least if they are aware of the fa
>>
I don't believe in involving the government in this stuff. I would
like to believe that humans would have enough sense not to saw off the
limbs they are sitting on, and to do what is necessary for the long
term survival of all major species, human and otherwise, (for, like
it or not, our fortunes may well be the same) at least if they were
provided with the facts. If you want to use such naivety as an
example of at least one instance where I was foolish as you, you are
free to. Guilty as charged.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>set--the more likely the inevitable natural, and social, disasters are to increase
>>>>>and hit us in the future (starvation, pollution, crime, etc.).
>>Human lives are worth more than those of animals. Care to dispute me? You probably
>>will. Which only shows how foolish you are. Ethical and Moral Concerns for the
>>poor spotted owl? Wonderful; who cares how many humans are put out of work? Humans,
>>in your view, are the LOWEST on the totem pole--the ones who can always be
>>sacrificed for some weed or worm.
On what are you basing this relative value scale? Instinct? The
storybook rantings attributed to your chosen diety by his devout
human scribes? Fact is, humans have no more rights or intrinsic value
than any other animal, at least if one is to judge from the way those
same humans exploit and murder those weaker than themselves. Many a
human child has been blown to perdition because the temporary
suspension of Christian morality and the fervent belief in the
value of human life was necessary to achieve some so-called
"greater good." Individuals can be sacrified, murdered, deprived of
rights, etc, when necessary. The trick is to give internecine
extermination a fancy name like "The Great War," "Operation Asskick,"
etc., then humans can take part in and support the killing of other
people without compromising their elaborate and phony moral
constructs, even though the greater good they seek through such
efforts is often something like a continuing supply of cheap oil to
flagrantly waste.
Tell me, did you oppose the Gulf War? Seems you would have had little
choice, given your aforementioned and selective reverence for the
lives of humans.
Individuals have only the rights that have been
allocated to them by systems constructed by other animals, or those
Define reason
>>>>Humans are the only ones who can take
>>>>responsibility for their acts, and therefore they are the only ones who have
>>>>RIGHTS (the inalienable sort).
>>>>Humans make the rules; humans set the values;
>>>>humans are (for better or worse) the BOSS around here; better get used to it.
Inalienable rights are largely imaginary. They are abstract political
concepts that exist, to the exent they do, only as long as their
existence suits OUR BOSSES.
>>Why are humans superior to animals? BECAUSE WE SAY WE ARE and we can back it
>>up.
Well, who the hell can argue with that?
Maybe we are making the rules for now. But we may soon have to play a
new game. And this time we may not get to write the rulebook.
>>>Does Make-a-Wish have the right to send a dying (supposedly) boy to take
>>another life, whether it be a bear, a man, a frog, or an ant?
>Sure. Yup. You betcha.
>You sound like you're coming from LALA land.
damn good
>>>>>
>>>>>If we can do something to protect "American heritage," and to avoid what is happening
>>>>>to so many other people around the world today, why don't we do it?
>>>>>
>>Because we are sane and rational?
Maybe because we are spiritually bankrupt, obsessive, materialistic
consumerist junkies, selfish buffoons obsessed with that which is
worthless, indifferent to that which is precious, clinging tenaciously
to a wasteful way of life propped up by a moribund political and
economic system, and bolstered mentally by the rantings of folks that
find it profitable in the short term to tell us what we want to hear,
whether it is the truth or not.
Who and what we are today will be reviled and seen as incredibly
ignorant by whomever ultimately inherits the legacy of the mindset
which successfully elevated "scorched earth" ecological policies
from mere greed-motivated and short-sighted degradation to "progress"
and "economic expansion," that we have not only the right but the duty
to continue.
I hope you are ready for the world that comes of all of this. Someday
you may get to find out how useless most of the elements which, in the
aggregate, comprise your concept of "human superiority" are. Society
breaks down in a hurry after even small scale calamities (like
Hurricaine Andrew), and sooner or later the so-called nonexistent
threats of global warming, deforestation, overfishing and
overpopulation will cause our economic and social system to implode
like a rotten pumpkin.
That's when you will have to play the new game. So-called "valueless"
D. Braun
On Mon, 20 May 1996, Jim Kennemur wrote:
> On 19 May 1996 16:58:35 -0400, rocki...@aol.com (RockinJill) wrote:
>
>
> >I heard that Gingrich has patched up his differences with crazy Helen
> >Chenoweth (R-ID) and that he has now decided he will campaign for her
> >afterall. Idaho is one of two or three states where Gingrich's positive
> >ratings are above 30%. One of Gingrich's campaign organizers has ruled
> >out Newt arriving in a helicopter, fearing than an overly rambunctious
> >Chenoweth supporter might shoot it down, thinking it was filled with
> >Russian troops disguised as UN soldiers taking over a national park.
> >
> >Democratic congressional candidates across the country are praying
> >that Newt will visit their districts. The majority of Republican
> >congressmen have asked him to stay out of their campaigns and not to visit
> >their states. (Has he become what Perot referred to as the "one-eyed aunt
> >in the basement?")
>
> And the list of those who do want Newt to come campaign for them shows
> that they still haven't a clue as to why they are about to lose
> control of Congress.
>
> Top of the Clueless List....Steve Stockman. MY CONGRESSMAN. But not
> for long!
>
> Jim
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> "I'm here, I'm in your face, and I'm Republican.
> Get used to it, I'm a freshman!"
>
> Steve Stockman (R-Texas) to Environmental Protesters
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newt just cancelled a fund-raiser in Portland--- ostensibly because the
hosts couldn't afford security. LAME EXCUSE. Could it be that the
hundreds of protestors that would have showed up (like they did in Seattle
last fall) would , um, make him seem unpopular? Or was it that lots of the
tables would be empty, and the TV stations couldn't be trusted to only pan
on the crowd huddled in the front of the room? BTW, I went hoarse yelling
"BOOT NEWT!!" for an hour --- I hope Bill felt my throat-pain.
Dave Braun
Jim Kennemur
On 19 May 1996 16:58:35 -0400, rocki...@aol.com (RockinJill) wrote:
>I heard that Gingrich has patched up his differences with crazy Helen
>Chenoweth (R-ID) and that he has now decided he will campaign for her
>afterall. Idaho is one of two or three states where Gingrich's positive
>ratings are above 30%. One of Gingrich's campaign organizers has ruled
>out Newt arriving in a helicopter, fearing than an overly rambunctious
>Chenoweth supporter might shoot it down, thinking it was filled with
>Russian troops disguised as UN soldiers taking over a national park.
>
>Democratic congressional candidates across the country are praying
>that Newt will visit their districts. The majority of Republican
>congressmen have asked him to stay out of their campaigns and not to visit
>their states. (Has he become what Perot referred to as the "one-eyed aunt
>in the basement?")
And the list of those who do want Newt to come campaign for them shows
that they still haven't a clue as to why they are about to lose
control of Congress.
Top of the Clueless List....Steve Stockman. MY CONGRESSMAN. But not
for long!
Jim
=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"I'm here, I'm in your face, and I'm Republican.
Get used to it, I'm a freshman!"
Steve Stockman (R-Texas) to Environmental Protesters
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Alan Bomberger
In article <4no21r$b...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, rocki...@aol.com
(RockinJill) wrote:
>
> >Democratic campaign strategists have offered to pay for Gingrich's
> >airfares to bring him to speak in every district in the country. He is
> >the most despised man in American politics and his approval ratings are
> >similar to another right-wing extremist, Timothy McVeigh, also a
> >Stockman supporter.
>
> I heard that Gingrich has patched up his differences with crazy Helen
> Chenoweth (R-ID) and that he has now decided he will campaign for her
> afterall. Idaho is one of two or three states where Gingrich's positive
> ratings are above 30%. One of Gingrich's campaign organizers has ruled
> out Newt arriving in a helicopter, fearing than an overly rambunctious
> Chenoweth supporter might shoot it down, thinking it was filled with
> Russian troops disguised as UN soldiers taking over a national park.
>
> Democratic congressional candidates across the country are praying
> that Newt will visit their districts. The majority of Republican
> congressmen have asked him to stay out of their campaigns and not to visit
> their states. (Has he become what Perot referred to as the "one-eyed aunt
> in the basement?")
Alas, when people actually listen to Newt (a rarety among the Donkey's)
they like what he says a lot!.. Newt getting out an speaking will be
a very positive force for the GOP. The Donkey's hate it when someone
with ideas speaks against them. The 30% who like Newt are the ones
that have actually listened to more than the TV news soundbites.
Alan Bomberger
In article <3198DB...@mhs.adp.unc.edu>, Mike Conway
<mcc....@mhs.adp.unc.edu> wrote:
> Halley Bay Antarctic Ozone Data
>
> Mean October ozone column thickness, Dobson Units,
> as measured at the British Antarctic Survey station
> at Halley Bay (Latitude 76 south, Longitude 26 west)
>
> 1956 321 1971 299 1986 248
> 1957 330 1972 304 1987 163
> 1958 314 1973 289 1988 232
> 1959 311 1974 274 1989 164
> 1960 301 1975 308 1990 179
> 1961 317 1976 283 1991 155
> 1962 332 1977 251 1992 142
> 1963 309 1978 284 1993 111
> 1964 318 1979 261 1994 124
> 1965 281 1980 227 1995 138
> 1966 316 1981 237
> 1967 323 1982 234
> 1968 301 1983 210
> 1969 282 1984 201
> 1970 282 1985 196
>
> Data from J. D. Shanklin, British Antarctic Survey, personal
> communications, 1993-95.
How do you know that this 40 year pattern is not normal? The earth
has been around for millions of years. Life has come and been wiped
out by cycles of weather, volcanic activity, meteors, etc. Why do
you assume that we as impotent slime have any significant influence
on the patterns that will eventually end life as we know it.
I am not saying that we aren't causing the Ozone layer to be
depleted, and that this isn't bad. It is just that pointing
out that it is depleted is NOT evidence that we are doing
anything to cause that depletion. It may be part of a pattern
that we don't understand and have little control over.
Daniel Hoffman
Writing with some interesting news from the reawakened "Left Coast, David
Braun (dbr...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
: Newt just cancelled a fund-raiser in Portland--- ostensibly because the
: hosts couldn't afford security. LAME EXCUSE. Could it be that the
: hundreds of protestors that would have showed up (like they did in Seattle
: last fall) would , um, make him seem unpopular?
I heard that the Republicans and their funders hire hecklers, and pay the
expenses of people who hassle speakers on the left. Are _you_ being paid
to tell Newt he's a jerk, or is it simply that there is something about
him that makes you want to scream?
: Or was it that lots of the
: tables would be empty, and the TV stations couldn't be trusted to only pan
: on the crowd huddled in the front of the room? BTW,
Didn't you hear that the press was controlled by the liberal elite? How
could it be possible that the stations would pander to a politician, who
appeals to its shareholders and advertisers, when that politician's policies
are contrary to the nation's future, as viewed by the reporters who have
been paying attention to the issues? You don't really believe that the
right wing "experts" got hired because they will defend any position
they are paid to defend do you?
: I went hoarse yelling
: "BOOT NEWT!!" for an hour --- I hope Bill felt my throat-pain.
Now why would you want to "BOOT NEWT," when the better the American
people get to know him the less they can stomach the Republicans in
general? He did bring some good terms to the debate like, "cynical,"
"bizarre," "sick," "hypocrisy," "self-serving," "greedy," "ideological,"
and "insensitive" to the debate. The more the American people reflect
on those concepts, especially with Newt hogging the limelight, the
more freshmen Democrats we'll see this fall.
If you really want to support Bill Clinton, scream "Newt for Vice
President!" at his next rally.
TTYL
Daniel Hoffman
D. Braun
Good point; nothing is ever absolutely proven in science. However, in
addition to correlation between anthropogenic chemical input to the
atmosphere and ozone depletion, is the causative link of some of these
chemicals actually destroying ozone in the atmosphere. This relationship,
together with a lack of alternative hypotheses that can acout for the
downward trend in ozone in Antarctica produce a working hypothesis that human inputs are
causing it.
The final piece of the puzzle will appear when the trend
reverses, after anthropogenic atmospheric chemicals that destroy ozone
are cycled out of the atmosphere or otherwise become non-reactive with
ozone--- which will take decades for some chloro-flurocarbons.
Dave Braun
D. Braun
Thanks for the friendly sarcasm. BTW, I made up a "Go Pat Go" poster and
hung it on my wall (I was too chicken to put in front of my house--- my
neighbors might not have understood). Too bad he didn't get nominated.
Apocalypse Now!!
Dave Braun
lurch
>
>>>j...@deltanet.com (Jim Glass) wrote:
>
>>>In article <319D75...@goodnet.com>, rsu...@goodnet.com says...
>>>>shouldn't) be given proper respect because our economic/moral/social interests are at
>>>>stake.
>>>More importantly, all -VALUES- are human values. NOTHING has value
>>>unless a person gives it a value. Trees and spotted owls are inherently
>>>VALUELESS; they have only that value we decide to bestow on them.
>
>>If you are serious about this, you have my sympathies.
>
>>I'm not going to bother to assail your apparent belief in the sanctity
>>and justifiablity of inter-species imperialism.
>Your word. "Imperialism", eh? So when a lion eats a gazelle, it's
>practicing "inter-species imperialism", too, huh?
No. As I mention later in my reply, the doings of animals (other than
man) have not (at least so far) threatened the health and stability of
the global ecosystem. Given that our doings have, I feel a delination
is warranted here. We have powers no other animal has, and
responsibilities no other animal has. The lion is merely doing what he
must to survive. We are doing what we WANT, the cost be damned. There
is a difference.
>>psuedoscience, rationalizations and the pithy talk radio bromides you
>>have parrotted here.
>Strangely I got these bromides all by myself: I have never heard ANY
>radio talk shows. And Malthusians have a really, REALLY bad track-
>record. They've been 100% wrong every time they opened their mouths.
>You are, too.
I’m afraid it’s still too early to tell whether Malthus was a
visionary or an alarmist. Fact is, the world would be a better place
if people HAD listened to him.
>But suppose for the sake of argument you happen to be right this time.
>We will use up this planet and find new ones to use up. I am dead serious.
Right. Why didn’t I think of that? Hell, it only took about 30 years
of research and tens of billions of dollars to get a handful of people
to our lifeless moon (a mere stone’s through away, compared to all
other celestial bodies) and gather a few sacks of rocks, why don’t we
just pack the entire population of the Earth into crates and move to
another, far more distant, lifeless rock? That’ll solve everything.
Forget that we don’t have the technology we would need and no idea how
it could be developed, or that Mars and all the other planets in our
solar system are hostile environments that could yield little other
than minerals, even if we were crazy enough to underwrite the
"astronomical" cost of even small scale colonization. But man can do
anything, right? We will build light speed cruisers and spend years in
transit seeking out new solar systems. And these options make
infinitely more sense than making a few sacrifices to protect the
perfectly good planet we already have. Ah well, when a rational
perspective is lacking, silly Star Trek fantasies will do.
>There is a whole solar system out there to exploit and humans will
>exploit it. You types will moan about "polluting the pristine vacuum", or
>messing up the lovely Moon; you'll bitch about terraforming Mars when we
>get around to it. Tough. What ever made you suppose the game ends here?
You know, your invective and your invariably innacurate inferences are
not really good substitutes for a reasoned argument, but I know you
have to do the best you can with what you tools you have.
>And even if it takes a long while to move out into the Solar System, there
>are LOTS of resources out there that can extend and prolong things here.
>I know you've been looking forward to mass deaths (of humans, not animals),
>but I'm afraid you are bound to be disappointed.
Bummer. Had my heart set on being up to my ass in cadavers. Keep track
of what happpens in Africa (especially around lake Victoria) in the
next few years. You’ll get a bit of an idea where we are all may be
headed. But you are wrong if you think I’m looking forward to
catastrophe. I’m just not willing to plumb the depths of
self-deception that you are to guiltlessy pursue a lifestyle that will
help bring it about.
>>Island if you want a good, time-compressed and telling microcosm of
>>man's long-term global environmental degradation, as well as an
>>inkling of what may well be our eventual fate as a species.
>See above. Easter Island we're not; WE can go elsewhere, if only we
>can rid ourselves of Luddites like you.
See above. Luddite, eh? You’ve been spending too much time trying to
draw unabomber parallels. It’s convenient when a whacko espouses a few
points similar to those of the people you happen to be arguing with,
isn’t it? Saves a lot of trouble.
If a solution to our problems is found, technology will undoubtedly
play a huge role in bringing it about. At least if we can remain
focused and avoid pissing away time and energy attempting to convert
foolish pipe-dream fantasies to reality.
>years of human history) and most of us lack the instincts and
>physical capabilities to survive even a few weeks. God help the lot of
>us if the man-made systems (which you seem to believe will function in
>perpetuity) ever even sputter, let alone collapse.
>And by your tone you cannot wait. You actually *WANT* the "man-made" systems
>to collapse;
I want them replaced. In human systems, that generally requires a
collapse. If that is the case, so be it.
>you are DREAMING of mega-deaths of PERSONS (only humans are
>PERSONS; animals are not persons, but you will never understand the point).
When logic affords no refuge, many seek it through semantic
nit-picking. I understand that much.
>A death of a PERSON is infinitely more serious than that of an animal; again
>you will not understand what virtually every sane human has always under-
>stood.
>Stop and think about your anti-human, death-worshiping philosophy.
Well, that captures a whole lot. Sounds good, anyway. Even if I were
to accept this admittedly pervasive notion (which I don’t, largely
because the beliefs you hold stem from an effort to augment the
importance of your existence with the opinions of those who managed to
draw capricious and ultimately meaningless conclusions from a
philosophical conundrum) those so-called "sane" people, with few
exceptions, accept that humans are perfectly justified in killing each
other not only in self "self-defense," but through state sponsered
revenge, the vague and generally wrong-headed implementation of
political imperatives, etc.. Seems a tad inconsistent. No wonder so
many of those long-winded philosopher types went nuts.
"In an insane society, the sane man must appear insane"-- some "Star
Trek" character.
I figured you would appreciate my sinking to the regurgitation of
cornball philosophy from a trash TV show which emobidied the blind
faith in human ingenuity that you apparently have. From what do you
deduce that I worship death? My belief that the current human course
will lead to calamity? Well, I hope you are fond of death yourself,
for people of your ilk are going to be quite busy killing messengers
from here on out. You’ll hardly have time to watch new wars and the
effects of massive third world famines on your wide-screen TV.
I have no idea in what manner you celebrate life, either your own or
that of all creatures, but your tendency to draw a clearly defined
dividing line between man and all others indicates to me that you do
not really know how. I know those that seek joy only in those things
which result from the works of humans are among the most pitiful of
all animals, and have so become so alienated from their biological
birthrights that they tend to fear not only death but life itself, and
slip into serious self-delusion as a survival mechanism. Recognizing
one’s place in the whole is, in my mind, the first step toward a true
appreciation of life, and yes, death. I accept both, and fear nor
worship neither.
Anti-human, huh? That’s great. I love adding a new buzzword to my
collection of childish insults that have been hurled at me out of
sheer desperation. I believe you are actively promoting a world where
human suffering, genocide and starvation will take place on a
heretofore unimagined scale, and I would prefer to avoid it. Both of
us can argue till the artificially inseminated cows come home about
which "experts" to believe, as part of a supposed effort to define who
is deluded and who is a realist, or who is truly "anti-human." All I
can say is I tend to trust people that have nothing to gain
(financially) by making our ecological degradation appear less serious
than it actually is, as well as my instincts, and my own research and
observations. We can say our current bizarre weather is due to
naturally occurring phenomena, and that even though scientists have
been predicting (for more than one hundred years) that greenhouse
gases would cause exactly the phenomena we are experiencing now, some
us would prefer to believe the few hacks that claim there is no proof
and it is all mere coincidence. In the interest of sparing bandwidth,
I will not bother to list dozens of other examples of the same sort of
obvious self-deception.
Funny, though, given your penchant for Buck Rogers type technofixes,
that folks like you won’t even believe NASA scientists when they tell
us the atmosphere is fucked up. As long as they are putting a man on
the moon and shooting a craft the size of a Greyhound bus into orbit,
they are genuises in the eyes of all. When they pass along some bad
news, they immediately become alarmist buffoons, and I guess, in one
follows your line of deduction, "anti-human."
>
>>If we make the planet sick, it'll make us sick
>
>>But I know anything that flys in the face of what you see as our our
>>divinely granted rights to accumulate, indiscriminately procreate and
>>piss away resources "just because we can,dammit" is tree-hugging
>>hogwash, right?
>Right. You know, the only bunch of you greenies I have ANY respect for is
>the Nature Conservancy. THEY put their money where their big, fat mouths are.
>If they see a piece of nature they don't want me messing up, they BUY it and
>post "no trespassing" signs. Why don't YOU do the same? Wanna save the
>rainforests? Instead of jawboning the Brazillians, take up a collection and
>BUY the fucking rainforest. THEN you can tell others what to do (or not to
>do) with them. Until then, shut the fuck up. The rainforests BELONG TO THE
>BRAZILLIANS;
Why don’t you shut the fuck up? I wasn’t aware that I needed your
permission to respond to your simple-minded drivel. Until you quit
jawboning and buy the usenet, I’ll keep on helping you make yourself
look foolish.
I will concede that buying up threatened areas is a partial solution
and should be actively pursued. My intent is to convince average
people that this and similar efforts are indeed worthwhile and perhaps
they should take that money they were planning to spend on a second
salad shooter and contribute something themselves, because,
tragically, I can’t afford it all by myself. But this small attempt at
re-education is made all the more difficult by people that continually
insist that serious eco-problems do not exist. I had often said
something beside lip servive and token contributions from the monied
actors in their smog-shrouded west coast playpens would be a big help,
but I’m not holding my breath.
Agree with you about the conservancy, but whatever altruistic efforts
I may or may not make in this area are not discussed online. I don’t
bother. Most of those that presume to share such things subject us all
to a heap of unalloyed falsehoods and self-aggrandizing bullshit.
>
>>Someone has done a fine job.
>Yeah; *I* studied logic, philosophy, and history. I noticed that animals
>frequently kill one another to survive. Even plants do so. And you guys
>are whining about a boy who wants to hunt a bear. Where do you *THINK* the
>human race obtained its food before "supermarkets"? Manna from heaven?
I’ve killed bears. And deer. And just about everything else that walks
or crawls or flys at one time or another (apologies to Eastwood). I
don’t hunt anymore, but would do so if I needed to. Animals kill. We
kill. No argument there. And any human I felt intended to do bodily
harm to me or a member of my family would have all the air let out of
his rib cage in a big hurry. Seem inconsistent to you? Not really.
Each animal struggles to survive, and for all your apparent moral
high-mindedness, I don’t think you give two shits for some miserable,
starving bugger squatting on the banks of the Ganges. Do you own a
dog? I do. If you do, tell me you wouldn’t feel worse about it being
run over by a car than you would about this unnamed and unseen piece
of human flotsam falling face first in the river and drowning. I know
I would, but I’m not preaching the sanctity and inherent worth of that
guy’s lifeforce, as you are. The problem with hypocrisy is that it
usually shows.
The rights of the individual are always subject to being rescinded by
some stronger creature. But my point all along has been that massive
extermination of animals and the rape of entire ecosystems may one day
leave us with a planet unfit for human habitation. If that is the
case, the biological genocide we are now engaged in (taking place not
in the interest of survival, but pursuit of gross largesse) leaps
clear of the perfectly defensible tenets of the "law of the jungle,"
and becomes mere stupidity.
>
>>>>My only point here is that the environment should be protected--by which I mean the
>>>>"sustained" development path suggested by the UN and its conventions--for its own
>>>>sake.
>
>>Gee, that's what the Unabomber said...
>
>
>>>>>>The conclusion I've drawn (and I fear it may be sslightly visceral) is that
>>>>>>judeo-Christian ethics place relatively little respect in life, when compared to
>>>>>>Eastern cultures. Descrying against killing for sport, recklessly destroying
>>>>>>habitats, and eating meat is considered radical, anti-American, etc.
>
>>>Why, yes; it is. The stuff is OURS; we own it. We get to say how it is
>>>used. Or how it is disposed. Including "habitats", "meat", etc.
>
>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now let me address the economic approach to environmental stability.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1. Take the hypothetical example of beef. California more specifically. While
>>>>>>different things.
>
>>>And so what you want to do is use the power of government to -FORCE- people to
>>>stop growing, selling, and eating meat. You want to force people to become
>>>vegitarians, because onat least if they are aware of the fa
>>>
>
>>I don't believe in involving the government in this stuff. I would
>>like to believe that humans would have enough sense not to saw off the
>>limbs they are sitting on,
>OK; I hereby announce that I DO NOT. I'm gonna eat beef until I have a
>heart attack. What are YOU gonna do about it?
Oh, I don’t know. Wish you good luck?
I have nothing against eating some meat. But I don’t buy any. I
slaughter, gut and pluck my own chickens and guineas. I wouldn’t touch
that steroid-laced, chemical filled, cellophane-wrapped garbage you
probably eat.
You don’t seem to understand that, as I said before, I don’t wish to
impose my will on anyone. I merely wish to point out there are better
ways to live and eat than the way we currently do. If you have your
heart set on having a heart attack, no one is questioning your "right"
to do so. But I believe, in general, it would be better for the
planet and the people that live on it if we devoted less space to the
raising of livestock, and tried to terminate our love affair with
arterial plaque. Silly me.
>and to do what is necessary for the long
>term survival of all major species, human and otherwise, (for, like
>it or not, our fortunes may well be the same) at least if they were
>provided with the facts. If you want to use such naivety as an
>example of at least one instance where I was foolish as you, you are
>free to. Guilty as charged.
>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>set--the more likely the inevitable natural, and social, disasters are to increase
>>>>>>and hit us in the future (starvation, pollution, crime, etc.).
>
>>>Human lives are worth more than those of animals. Care to dispute me? You probably
>>>will. Which only shows how foolish you are. Ethical and Moral Concerns for the
>>>poor spotted owl? Wonderful; who cares how many humans are put out of work? Humans,
>>>in your view, are the LOWEST on the totem pole--the ones who can always be
>>>sacrificed for some weed or worm.
>
>On what are you basing this relative value scale? Instinct? The
>storybook rantings attributed to your chosen diety by his devout
>human scribes?
>Note that I have not mentioned religion even once.
And I repeat the question. What are you basing your beliefs on?
>>Fact is, humans have no more rights or intrinsic value
>>than any other animal,
>And this is the sick core of modern liberal "thought". Once you buy
>THIS, why, it's easy to build Gulags. And subverting the Constitution
>one may do in one's sleep, eh?
(Since you seem determined to avoid rationally attempting to refute my
points by slinging around meaningless labels and dragging this
discussion into the political arena I suspect you feel more
comfortable in, I will oblige you with a response in kind this one
time.)
Or to rescind the Bill of Rights under the guise of mounting a phony
"War on Drugs." Or to engage in hyperthyroid buttressing of banana
republic right-wing dictatorships, or to invade a country whose
tinhorn leader was no longer any use to the CIA in its effort to
manage the importation of drugs that the rest of the government is
pretending to be fighting, or giving a free rein to increasingly
self-contained and rampaging federal agencies, etc. I’m no liberal,
(at least based on what I believe your definition of this ambigious
word is), but I do find it funny how so-called conservatives will
ignore all sorts of facism as long as the spiky realities remain
wrapped in the marshmallow rhetoric of "family values," or the blanket
absolution engendered by the mere mention of the phrase "National
Security Interests."
> rights, etc, when necessary. The trick is to give internecine
>>extermination a fancy name like "The Great War," "Operation Asskick,"
>>etc., then humans can take part in and support the killing of other
>>people without compromising their elaborate and phony moral
>>constructs, even though the greater good they seek through such
>>efforts is often something like a continuing supply of cheap oil to
>>flagrantly waste.
>Blah, blah, blah. So tell me how your belief that "humans have no more
>rights or intrinsic value than any other animal" is inconsistent with
>the above list of horrors. Seeing humans as animals is enormously
>freeing, isn't it: you can wish for plagues, famines, etc.; you can
>justify all sorts of things (ask Stalin and Adolph).
Yak, Yak, Yak. Asinine paragraph. Deserves an asinine response.
Actually, it’s funny that you mention it. I just came back from dinner
with Joe and Adolph (don’t you wish you had a time hose?) And I now
have their original blueprints for global human extermination, and the
means to implement them (that part is a secret). You’d best getting to
work on your own little starcruiser. Hell is coming to brunch.
By the way, I implied that the above list of horrors was inconsistent
with your philosophy, not mine. Interesting tactic you tried there.
>
>>Tell me, did you oppose the Gulf War? Seems you would have had little
>>choice, given your aforementioned and selective reverence for the
>>lives of humans.
>Silly. I approved it. You would NEVER understand why.
Another interesting tactic. Didn't all those years of study in those
impressive-sounding disciplines provide you with any debating tools
besides well-poisoning, blind generalizations, the previously
mentioned inferences, and the ever popular and laughably smug attempt
to duck the question by implying your opponent wouldn’t get it even if
you tried?
>
>>Individuals have only the rights that have been
>>allocated to them by systems constructed by other animals, or those
>>that they can take by force.
>At least you admit that you and Jefferson are, shall we say, a tiny
>bit at odds...
I admire Jefferson. For the most part, he tried his best. And he
helped to create one of the better systems of government. But I still
have trouble reconciling the ownership of other humans with his
notions of inalienable human rights. Were he alive today, I think he
would have sense enough to admit he made some mistakes, and that what
passes for "traditional thinking" could do with some modifications.
Clinging to 220 year-old concepts as if they were chiseled on tablets
from God has little utility nor promise in the world we now inhabit.
>I just happen to believe our so-called
>rights can be taken away by forces of non-human origin, and it might
>>be wise to consider providing for a environmental "greater good" even
>>if it meant sacrificing human individuals. Why would this be any less
>>morally defensible than the war-related deaths of almost 100 million
>>people in the last century, which resulted largely from greed and
>>quests for far less important prizes?
>World war II was fought because a madman wanted to rule the world.
>Implementing YOUR ideas would require a totalitarian state that would
>make Hitler feel inadequate.
WWII (and all others) was fought because people covet that which
others have, and have not been able to dispense with violent instincts
that at one time ensured the survival of the species. We all have
them, and we shouldn’t apologize for them. We should, however, accept
they exist, rather than trying to personally distance ourserves from
such reprehensible side-effects as genocide by falsely painting the
causes of war as a series of stark contrasts, then hanging a few "war
criminals" when it’s all over. Perhaps if we did, we would be better
able to manage these destructive tendencies. But doing so would sort
of gum up our notion that humans (well, at least except for those
no-good madmen) are radically different at the core of their being
from all the other ignorant, soulless and savage animals, and that
would be too high a price to pay, wouldn't it?.
The totalitarian state you dread is much more likely to be implemented
if no action or attempts at re-education take place (an effort which,
as I said before, I am merely trying to make a small contribution to),
as part of an effort to maintain "order" in a collapsing system. I
believe it may already have begun, at least in this country.
>Rights: you have the right to keep breathing. You have the right to
>be left alone. You have the right to do as you damned well please---
>unless you try to harm someone else. In other words, you have the
>right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Note that
>true rights (the above is an exhaustive list) are only about things you
>can do for yourself. You DO NOT have a right to medical care or housing
>(unless you can build or pay for your house yourself). Natural forces
>can make such rights moot. The right to life does not grant immortality.
As I said, these so called "rights" owe their origin to nothing more
binding than political whims. Someone hiding in a basement during an
air raid that gets a bomb dropped on his head has them suddenly and
completely recinded, doesn’t he? So the attempt to prove they exist is
a waste of time, at best.
>So what? We are talking about rights because we have discovered that humans
>need to have certain base or core freedoms protected. And we have discovered
>that, by HUMAN NATURE, these rights are the minimal set. You types want
>them removed--declared meaningless--because only then can you impose your
>total control over every single remaining person.
Oh, and what "type" am I, pray tell? Humans should cooperate and do
what makes sense. If you want to cling to calling the tangible-but
invariably unfairly distributed benefits of this cooperation "rights,"
you are free to. But don’t hit me with that big government bullshit.
Were I in a position to rule by decree, the system I would create
would leave a whole lot of people currently pissing away tax dollars
facing the "law of the jungle."
>
>>>>OK; what about the lowly AIDS virus. Morality
>>>dictates that IT has a right to live, eh? So let's stop all those mean scientists
>>>who are working day and night to kil
>>>Cockroaches, too. The humble cockroach has as much of a right to live as you do.
>>>Let's lock up anybody who kills a bug, and outlaw RAID, right?
>
>>reductio ad absurdum. Cheap, childish, and not worth a refutation.
>
>Reductio is a valid tool. Go ahead; refute it.
Why don’t address the dozen or so points you’ve tried to duck in this
reply?
It’s already been refuted, anyway. Stomping a cockroach hardly has the
same potential for causing harm as reducing entire continents to
deserts. And we have every justification for fighting to survive. But
outlawing raid is not a bad idea, and other pesticides and
insecticides. But based on what I’ve read here, I guess you intend to
consume those things until you get cancer (hopefully right before you
die of your heart attack, timing is the key, here) and issue
belligerent challenges to anyone you have falsely assumed intends to
deprive you of your "right" to do so.
>>Don't worry about the bugs. They can take care of themselves. They
>>will be here long enough to piss on our ashes. And I expect we will be
>>seeing some new, much more hardy strains of virus soon; prolific
>>little devils that will be able to hold their own against the pop-gun
>>arsenal of modern medicine.
>
>Again, you are rubbing your hands with anticipation. Does a bear have more rights
>than a bug? Than a virus? So only humans have minimal rights, I guess; animals are
>all equal, only some are more equal than others--and again, WE show up on the bottom.
For once and for all. There is no bottom or top. Every animal is
concerned with it’s own survival, be it a virus, dog or man. With very
few exceptions, each values its own life more than the life of any
other living creature, and in higher animals, extends his circle of
concern to cover other creatures (usually family), likely of the same
species. This is the way of things. This is the basic truth. I just
don’t find it necessary to buttress this truth with a mishmosh of
abstractions that are varied to suit those with the power to vary
them. Who granted them (or you or I) the power to define the relative
worth of living creatures? But this does not mean I won’t kill a
mosquito that is sucking my blood or a tiger that charges me or a nut
that trys to kill me. I would do any and all of those things, and feel
little more guilt doing the last than I have after doing the first.
All such actions would be born of perfectly rational instincts, that,
as I said before, need not be futilely apologized for. But what is
required now for the survival of all of us is not a blind and blanket
justification of the human rape of the natural world arising from
"rights" related absractions.
>>>>Don't forget bacteria; my fave is the one that was publicized as the "flesh eater"
>>>a year or so ago. If it takes hold in YOUR leg, let it be: it's only trying to
>>>survive, after all.
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>3.The pure moral argument. What indication is there that humans are superior to
>>>>>>animals.
>
>>>If you can ask this question,you are beyond reason. OK, I'll try. Humans are
>>>the only animals who can reason.
>
>Define reason
Please note this request is still hanging in the air like a thermally
elevated cloud of flesh-eating bacteria. Hang onto that rope, sport.
God knows what I’d use it for.
>>>>>Humans are the only ones who can take
>>>>>responsibility for their acts, and therefore they are the only ones who have
>>>>>RIGHTS (the inalienable sort).
>>>>>Humans make the rules; humans set the values;
>>>>>humans are (for better or worse) the BOSS around here; better get used to it.
>
>>Inalienable rights are largely imaginary. They are abstract political
>>concepts that exist, to the exent they do, only as long as their
>>existence suits OUR BOSSES.
>And who might they be? Have you taken your medication today?
Hey, aren’t you going to tell me to get away from my dad’s computer?
Or is that one too original for you, you old traditionalist, you.
Tit for tat. If you don’t know, then we know they are perfectly safe.
Hint: It has something to do with money.
>
>>>Why are humans superior to animals? BECAUSE WE SAY WE ARE and we can back it
>>>up.
>
>>Well, who the hell can argue with that?
>
>>Maybe we are making the rules for now. But we may soon have to play a
>>new game. And this time we may not get to write the rulebook.
>
>Try not to sound so enthusiastic...
Beating my imagined fondness for death to death, ain’t ya?
>>>>Does Make-a-Wish have the right to send a dying (supposedly) boy to take
>>>another life, whether it be a bear, a man, a frog, or an ant?
>
>>Sure. Yup. You betcha.
>
>>You sound like you're coming from LALA land.
>
>damn good
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If we can do something to protect "American heritage," and to avoid what is happening
>>>>>>to so many other people around the world today, why don't we do it?
>>>>>>
>
>>>Because we are sane and rational?
>
>>Maybe because we are spiritually bankrupt, obsessive, materialistic
>>consumerist junkies, selfish buffoons obsessed with that which is
>>worthless, indifferent to that which is precious, clinging tenaciously
><to a wasteful way of life propped up by a moribund political and
>>economic system, and bolstered mentally by the rantings of folks that
>>find it profitable in the short term to tell us what we want to hear,
>>whether it is the truth or not.
>OK; I'll call. YOU GIVE UP materialistic and consumerist ways. Begin by
>foregoing electricity and computers. Evil. Evil, they are. Better move
>to a mud hut and start scratching for grubs; oops--sorry--you must be a
>vegan, eh? Er, do not plants have rights, too?
Oh yes. I knew you wouldn’t let me down. So you think a person has no
right to comment on an issue unless he foolishly forgoes his means to
make such a comment (and perhaps make a small contribution to a
worldwide reordering of priorities) and "practices what he preaches"
by making a pointless and totally symbolic effort to be the sound of
one hand clapping, like your friend the unabomber. I’ll tell you what,
when someone comes along with a workable plan, even if it includes
drastic sacrifices, I’ll support him, and I’ll gladly do my part. Will
you? Anyway, it’s doubtful such a thing will happen, my own efforts
not withstanding, and anyone reading what you have had to say should
have no trouble figuring out why. So I am left to eagerly await the
day when I will, due to the efforts of folks of your ilk, get to
ventilate my next door neighbor over a can of beans. Hot Damn!
>
>Who and what we are today will be reviled and seen as incredibly
>ignorant by whomever ultimately inherits the legacy of the mindset
>which successfully elevated "scorched earth" ecological policies
>from mere greed-motivated and short-sighted degradation to "progress"
>and "economic expansion," that we have not only the right but the duty
>to continue.
>Right. Now you're predicting the future. Like I said, Malthusians have
>a "perfect" batting record at THAT.
Well, I hate to say it, but it’s all we have left. Doesn’t make much
sense to try to predict the past, or try to alter it.
Am I to assume, from your comments, that you don’t believe human
overpopulation is a problem? Go ahead, hit me with that muck about how
they’d all fit into Texas with lots of room left over for malls. I can
take it.
>>I hope you are ready for the world that comes of all of this. Someday
>>you may get to find out how useless most of the elements which, in the
>>aggregate, comprise your concept of "human superiority" are. Society
>>breaks down in a hurry after even small scale calamities (like
>>Hurricaine Andrew), and sooner or later the so-called nonexistent
>>threats of global warming, deforestation, overfishing and
>>overpopulation will cause our economic and social system to implode
>>like a rotten pumpkin.
>Again, try to control your salivation at the prospect...
Not to worry. Got a "drool guard" attachment over my keyboard.
Again, try to come up with some new tactics.
>
>>That's when you will have to play the new game. So-called "valueless"
>>animals already know how. Do you?
>
>Do YOU?
(Anwering questions with questions? Well, I guess you’ve hit ‘em all
now.)
You bet your ass. But that is never any guarantee. If they could only
talk, any animal could tell you that. You can never really be in
charge, nor control your own destiny. One can only make prudent
preparations and follow his instincts.
lurch
lurch
You know, your invective and your invariably inaccurate inferences are
other not only in self "self-defense," but through state-sponsored
efforts to seek revenge, the vague and generally wrong-headed
implementation of political imperatives, etc.. Seems a tad
inconsistent. No wonder so many of those long-winded philosopher types
went nuts.
>"In an insane society, the sane man must appear insane"-- some "Star
>Trek" character.
I figured you would appreciate my sinking to the regurgitation of
cornball philosophy from a trash TV show which embodied the blind
faith in human ingenuity that you apparently have. From what do you
deduce that I worship death? My belief that the current human course
will lead to calamity? Well, I hope you are fond of death yourself,
for people like you are going to be quite busy killing messengers
from here on out. You’ll hardly have time to watch new wars and the
effects of massive third world famines on your wide-screen TV.
I have no idea in what manner you celebrate life, either your own or
that of all creatures, but your tendency to draw a clearly defined
dividing line between man and all others indicates to me that you do
not really know how. I know those that seek joy only in those things
which result from the works of humans are among the most pitiful of
all animals, and have so become so alienated from their biological
birthrights that they tend to fear not only death but life itself, and
slip into serious self-delusion as a survival mechanism. Recognizing
one’s place in the whole is, in my mind, the first step toward a true
appreciation of life, and yes, death. I accept both, and fear or
worship neither.
Anti-human, huh? That’s great. I love adding a new buzzword to my
collection of childish insults that have been hurled at me out of
sheer desperation. I believe you are actively promoting a world where
human suffering, genocide and starvation will take place on a
heretofore unimagined scale, and I would prefer to avoid it. Both of
us can argue till the artificially inseminated cows come home about
which "experts" to believe, as part of a supposed effort to define who
is deluded and who is a realist, or who is truly "anti-human." All I
can say is I tend to trust people that have nothing to gain
(financially) by making our ecological degradation appear less serious
than it actually is, as well as my instincts, and my own research and
observations. We can say our current bizarre weather is due to
naturally occurring phenomena, and that even though scientists have
been predicting (for more than one hundred years) that greenhouse
gases would cause exactly the effects we are experiencing now, some
of us would prefer to believe the few hacks that claim there is no
proof and it is all mere coincidence. In the interest of sparing
bandwidth, I will not bother to list dozens of other examples of the
same sort of obvious self-deception.
Funny, though, given your penchant for Buck Rogers type technofixes,
that folks like you won’t even believe NASA scientists when they tell
us the atmosphere is fucked up. As long as they are putting a man on
the moon and shooting a craft the size of a Greyhound bus into orbit,
they are genuises in the eyes of all. When they pass along some bad
news, they immediately become alarmist buffoons, and I guess, if one
I Agree with you about the conservancy, but whatever altruistic
>>>>>>>1. Take the hypothetical example of beef. California more specifically. While
>>>>>>>different things.
>>
>>>>And so what you want to do is use the power of government to -FORCE- people to
>>>>stop growing, selling, and eating meat. You want to force people to become
>>>>vegitarians, because onat least if they are aware of the fa
>>>>
>>
>>>I don't believe in involving the government in this stuff. I would
>>>like to believe that humans would have enough sense not to saw off the
>>>limbs they are sitting on,
>>OK; I hereby announce that I DO NOT. I'm gonna eat beef until I have a
>>heart attack. What are YOU gonna do about it?
Oh, I don’t know. Wish you good luck?
I have nothing against eating some meat. But I don’t buy any. I
slaughter, gut and pluck my own chickens and guineas. I wouldn’t touch
that steroid-laced, chemical filled, cellophane-wrapped garbage you
probably eat.
You don’t seem to understand that, as I said before, I don’t wish to
impose my will on anyone. I merely wish to point out there are better
ways to live and eat than the way we currently do. If you have your
heart set on having a heart attack, no one is questioning your "right"
to do so. But I believe, in general, it would be better for the
planet and the people that live on it if we devoted less space to the
raising of livestock, and tried to terminate our love affair with
arterial plaque. Silly me.
>>>>Human lives are worth more than those of animals. Care to dispute me? You probably
(at least based on what I believe your definition of this ambiguious
that at one time insured the survival of the species. We all have
them, and we shouldn’t apologize for them. We should, however, accept
they exist, rather than trying to personally distance ourserves from
such reprehensible side-effects as genocide by falsely painting the
causes of war as a series of stark contrasts, then hanging a few "war
criminals" when it’s all over. Perhaps if we did, we would be better
able to manage these destructive tendencies. But doing so would sort
of gum up our notion that humans (well, at least except for those
no-good madmen) are radically different at the core of their being
from all the other ignorant, soulless and savage animals, and that
would be too high a price to pay, wouldn't it?.
The totalitarian state you dread is much more likely to be implemented
if no action or attempts at re-education take place (an effort which,
as I said before, I am merely trying to make a small contribution to),
as part of an effort to maintain "order" in a collapsing system. I
believe this may already have begun, at least in this country.
>>Rights: you have the right to keep breathing. You have the right to
>>be left alone. You have the right to do as you damned well please---
>>unless you try to harm someone else. In other words, you have the
>>right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Note that
>>true rights (the above is an exhaustive list) are only about things you
>>can do for yourself. You DO NOT have a right to medical care or housing
>>(unless you can build or pay for your house yourself). Natural forces
>>can make such rights moot. The right to life does not grant immortality.
As I said, these so called "rights" owe their origin to nothing more
binding than political whims. Someone hiding in a basement during an
air raid that gets a bomb dropped on his head has them suddenly and
completely rescinded, doesn’t he? So the attempt to prove they exist
is a waste of time, at best.
>>So what? We are talking about rights because we have discovered that humans
>>need to have certain base or core freedoms protected. And we have discovered
>>that, by HUMAN NATURE, these rights are the minimal set. You types want
>>them removed--declared meaningless--because only then can you impose your
>>total control over every single remaining person.
Oh, and what "type" am I, pray tell? Humans should cooperate and do
what makes sense. If you want to cling to calling the tangible but
invariably unfairly distributed benefits of this cooperation "rights,"
you are free to. But don’t hit me with that big government bullshit.
Were I in a position to rule by decree, the system I would create
would leave a whole lot of people currently pissing away tax dollars
facing the "law of the jungle."
>>
>>>>>OK; what about the lowly AIDS virus. Morality
>>>>dictates that IT has a right to live, eh? So let's stop all those mean scientists
>>>>who are working day and night to kil
>>>>Cockroaches, too. The humble cockroach has as much of a right to live as you do.
>>>>Let's lock up anybody who kills a bug, and outlaw RAID, right?
>>
>>>reductio ad absurdum. Cheap, childish, and not worth a refutation.
>>
>>Reductio is a valid tool. Go ahead; refute it.
Why don’t address the dozen or so points you’ve tried to duck in this
reply?
It’s already been refuted, anyway. Stomping a cockroach hardly has the
same potential for causing harm as reducing entire continents to
deserts. And we have every justification for fighting to survive. But
outlawing raid is not a bad idea, and other pesticides and
insecticides. But based on what I’ve read here, I guess you intend to
consume those things until you get cancer (hopefully before you
die of your heart attack, timing is the key, here) and issue
belligerent challenges to anyone you have falsely assumed intends to
deprive you of your "right" to do so.
>>>Don't worry about the bugs. They can take care of themselves. They
>>>will be here long enough to piss on our ashes. And I expect we will be
>>>seeing some new, much more hardy strains of virus soon; prolific
>>>little devils that will be able to hold their own against the pop-gun
>>>arsenal of modern medicine.
>>
>>Again, you are rubbing your hands with anticipation. Does a bear have more rights
>>than a bug? Than a virus? So only humans have minimal rights, I guess; animals are
>>all equal, only some are more equal than others--and again, WE show up on the bottom.
For once and for all. There is no bottom or top. Every animal is
concerned with it’s own survival, be it a virus, dog or man. With very
few exceptions, each values its own life more than the life of any
other living creature, and in higher animals, extends his circle of
concern to cover other creatures (usually family), likely of the same
species. This is the way of things. This is the basic truth. I just
don’t find it necessary to buttress this truth with a mishmosh of
abstractions that are varied to suit those with the power to vary
them. Who granted them (or you or I) the power to define the relative
worth of living creatures? But this does not mean I won’t kill a
mosquito that is sucking my blood or a tiger that charges me or a
human that trys to kill me. I would do any and all of those things,
and feel little more guilt doing the last than I have after doing the
first. All such actions would be born of perfectly rational instincts,
that, as I said before, need not be futilely apologized for. But what
is required now for the survival of all of us is not a blind and
blanket justification of man's rape of the natural world born of some
misguided belief in the absolute "rights" of humans.
make such a comment heard (and perhaps make a small contribution to a
lurch
Jim Kennemur
On Mon, 20 May 1996 17:46:42 GMT, al...@oes.amdahl.com (Alan Bomberger)
wrote:
>In article <4no21r$b...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, rocki...@aol.com
>(RockinJill) wrote:
>
>>
>> >Democratic campaign strategists have offered to pay for Gingrich's
>> >airfares to bring him to speak in every district in the country. He is
>> >the most despised man in American politics and his approval ratings are
>> >similar to another right-wing extremist, Timothy McVeigh, also a
>> >Stockman supporter.
>>
>> I heard that Gingrich has patched up his differences with crazy Helen
>> Chenoweth (R-ID) and that he has now decided he will campaign for her
>> afterall. Idaho is one of two or three states where Gingrich's positive
>> ratings are above 30%. One of Gingrich's campaign organizers has ruled
>> out Newt arriving in a helicopter, fearing than an overly rambunctious
>> Chenoweth supporter might shoot it down, thinking it was filled with
>> Russian troops disguised as UN soldiers taking over a national park.
>>
>> Democratic congressional candidates across the country are praying
>> that Newt will visit their districts. The majority of Republican
>> congressmen have asked him to stay out of their campaigns and not to visit
>> their states. (Has he become what Perot referred to as the "one-eyed aunt
>> in the basement?")
>
>Alas, when people actually listen to Newt (a rarety among the Donkey's)
>they like what he says a lot!.. Newt getting out an speaking will be
>a very positive force for the GOP. The Donkey's hate it when someone
>with ideas speaks against them. The 30% who like Newt are the ones
>that have actually listened to more than the TV news soundbites.
The 30% who agree with him are right-wing greedhead, Bible thumping,
gun worshiping reactionaries JUST LIKE NEWT!
30% doesn't get you elected last time I checked.
Jim
>
>--
>Alan Bomberger | (408)-992-2748 | al...@oes.amdahl.com
>Amdahl Corporation | Opinions are free, worth it, and not Amdahl's
>It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. - David Hume
=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"I'm here, I'm in your face, and I'm Republican.
Get used to it, I'm a freshman!"
Steve Stockman (R-Texas) to Environmental Protesters
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Jim Kennemur
On Sun, 19 May 1996 21:25:12 -0700, "D. Braun"
<dbr...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
>On Mon, 20 May 1996, Jim Kennemur wrote:
>
>> On 19 May 1996 16:58:35 -0400, rocki...@aol.com (RockinJill) wrote:
>>
>>
>> >I heard that Gingrich has patched up his differences with crazy Helen
>> >Chenoweth (R-ID) and that he has now decided he will campaign for her
>> >afterall. Idaho is one of two or three states where Gingrich's positive
>> >ratings are above 30%. One of Gingrich's campaign organizers has ruled
>> >out Newt arriving in a helicopter, fearing than an overly rambunctious
>> >Chenoweth supporter might shoot it down, thinking it was filled with
>> >Russian troops disguised as UN soldiers taking over a national park.
>> >
>> >Democratic congressional candidates across the country are praying
>> >that Newt will visit their districts. The majority of Republican
>> >congressmen have asked him to stay out of their campaigns and not to visit
>> >their states. (Has he become what Perot referred to as the "one-eyed aunt
>> >in the basement?")
>>
>> And the list of those who do want Newt to come campaign for them shows
>> that they still haven't a clue as to why they are about to lose
>> control of Congress.
>>
>> Top of the Clueless List....Steve Stockman. MY CONGRESSMAN. But not
>> for long!
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> =-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>> "I'm here, I'm in your face, and I'm Republican.
>> Get used to it, I'm a freshman!"
>>
>> Steve Stockman (R-Texas) to Environmental Protesters
>> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>Newt just cancelled a fund-raiser in Portland--- ostensibly because the
>hosts couldn't afford security. LAME EXCUSE. Could it be that the
>hundreds of protestors that would have showed up (like they did in Seattle
>last fall) would , um, make him seem unpopular? Or was it that lots of the
>tables would be empty, and the TV stations couldn't be trusted to only pan
>on the crowd huddled in the front of the room? BTW, I went hoarse yelling
>"BOOT NEWT!!" for an hour --- I hope Bill felt my throat-pain.
>
> Dave Braun
The local news stations in Houston all showed log shots of a guy
holding a NUCK FEWT bumper sticker.
Damn Liberal media.
Jim
=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"I'm here, I'm in your face, and I'm Republican.
Get used to it, I'm a freshman!"
Steve Stockman (R-Texas) to Environmental Protesters
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Jim Glass
In article <4nofhb$21...@mule2.mindspring.com>, lu...@mindspring.com says...
>
>>>j...@deltanet.com (Jim Glass) wrote:
>
>>>In article <319D75...@goodnet.com>, rsu...@goodnet.com says...
>>>>shouldn't) be given proper respect because our economic/moral/social interests are at
>>>>stake.
>
>>>I know it causes you great pain, but the FACT is that human beings
>>>happen to be the boss biped on this here planet; WE MAKE THE RULES.
>
>>More importantly, all -VALUES- are human values. NOTHING has value
>>unless a person gives it a value. Trees and spotted owls are inherently
>>VALUELESS; they have only that value we decide to bestow on them.
>
>If you are serious about this, you have my sympathies.
>
>I'm not going to bother to assail your apparent belief in the sanctity
>and justifiablity of inter-species imperialism.
Your word. "Imperialism", eh? So when a lion eats a gazelle, it's
practicing "inter-species imperialism", too, huh?
>Instead, I'd like to
>ask you a question. Do you not think there will someday be a price to
>pay for our heedless environmental exploitation and destruction? Do
>you believe we can somehow live apart from all the other worthless
>life forms that get in the way of our endless highways, apartments,
>airports and gargantuan urban hives? I don't. I believe that, whether
>we like it or not like it or not, man is never any further from the
>system that spawned him than his next meal, or for that matter, his
>next breath of air. If you think we can survive in the manner we have
>become accustomed in the treeless, polluted and biologically decimated
>world we are actively working (and have already begun) to bring about,
>then you understand little about the precariousness of the human
>position, and are merely comforting yourself with corporate
>psuedoscience, rationalizations and the pithy talk radio bromides you
>have parrotted here.
Strangely I got these bromides all by myself: I have never heard ANY
radio talk shows. And Malthusians have a really, REALLY bad track-
record. They've been 100% wrong every time they opened their mouths.
You are, too.
But suppose for the sake of argument you happen to be right this time.
We will use up this planet and find new ones to use up. I am dead serious.
There is a whole solar system out there to exploit and humans will
exploit it. You types will moan about "polluting the pristine vacuum", or
messing up the lovely Moon; you'll bitch about terraforming Mars when we
get around to it. Tough. What ever made you suppose the game ends here?
And even if it takes a long while to move out into the Solar System, there
are LOTS of resources out there that can extend and prolong things here.
I know you've been looking forward to mass deaths (of humans, not animals),
but I'm afraid you are bound to be disappointed.
>
>You are right about one thing. Man is the dominant life form on this
>planet. And, yes, human power being wielded without conscience or any
>sense of larger responsibility is so common that it has become almost
>defensible, especially in the minds of those tragically distanced from
>and confused by the natural world. But humans also have historically
>had the distressing habit of shitting in their own nests. We make a
>mess here, so we move there. Well, we are about out of room. Read
>about human colonization and eventual self-extermination on Easter
>Island if you want a good, time-compressed and telling microcosm of
>man's long-term global environmental degradation, as well as an
>inkling of what may well be our eventual fate as a species.
See above. Easter Island we're not; WE can go elsewhere, if only we
can rid ourselves of Luddites like you.
>
>The myriad lifeforms on the Earth have been kept in balance for
>millions of years by unseen and poorly understood forces. The general
>rule, however, is that animals that take up more space than they
>should are culled in great numbers. I have a healthy respect for these
>forces, and try to keep our own puny and presumptiously applied
>"powers" in perspective. We are intelligent apes, nothing more. Take
>away the supermarkets and our toys, tools and gizmos (that exist in
>the form they do because of incremental improvements over thousands of
>years of human history) and most of us lack the instincts and
>physical capabilities to survive even a few weeks. God help the lot of
>us if the man-made systems (which you seem to believe will function in
>perpetuity) ever even sputter, let alone collapse.
And by your tone you cannot wait. You actually *WANT* the "man-made" systems
to collapse; you are DREAMING of mega-deaths of PERSONS (only humans are
PERSONS; animals are not persons, but you will never understand the point).
A death of a PERSON is infinitely more serious than that of an animal; again
you will not understand what virtually every sane human has always under-
stood. Stop and think about your anti-human, death-worshiping philosophy.
>
>If we make the planet sick, it'll make us sick
>
>But I know anything that flys in the face of what you see as our our
>divinely granted rights to accumulate, indiscriminately procreate and
>piss away resources "just because we can,dammit" is tree-hugging
>hogwash, right?
Right. You know, the only bunch of you greenies I have ANY respect for is
the Nature Conservancy. THEY put their money where their big, fat mouths are.
If they see a piece of nature they don't want me messing up, they BUY it and
post "no trespassing" signs. Why don't YOU do the same? Wanna save the
rainforests? Instead of jawboning the Brazillians, take up a collection and
BUY the fucking rainforest. THEN you can tell others what to do (or not to
do) with them. Until then, shut the fuck up. The rainforests BELONG TO THE
BRAZILLIANS; they can do what they damned well please with them, even if it
makes you piss your pants.
>
>Someone has done a fine job.
Yeah; *I* studied logic, philosophy, and history. I noticed that animals
frequently kill one another to survive. Even plants do so. And you guys
are whining about a boy who wants to hunt a bear. Where do you *THINK* the
human race obtained its food before "supermarkets"? Manna from heaven?
>
>>>>My only point here is that the environment should be protected--by which I mean the
>>>>"sustained" development path suggested by the UN and its conventions--for its own
>>>>sake.
>
>>Gee, that's what the Unabomber said...
>
>
>>>>>>The conclusion I've drawn (and I fear it may be sslightly visceral) is that
>>>>>>judeo-Christian ethics place relatively little respect in life, when compared to
>>>>>>Eastern cultures. Descrying against killing for sport, recklessly destroying
>>>>>>habitats, and eating meat is considered radical, anti-American, etc.
>
>>>Why, yes; it is. The stuff is OURS; we own it. We get to say how it is
>>>used. Or how it is disposed. Including "habitats", "meat", etc.
>
>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now let me address the economic approach to environmental stability.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1. Take the hypothetical example of beef. California more specifically. While
>>>>>>different things.
>
>>>And so what you want to do is use the power of government to -FORCE- people to
>>>stop growing, selling, and eating meat. You want to force people to become
>>>vegitarians, because onat least if they are aware of the fa
>>>
>
>I don't believe in involving the government in this stuff. I would
>like to believe that humans would have enough sense not to saw off the
>limbs they are sitting on,
OK; I hereby announce that I DO NOT. I'm gonna eat beef until I have a
heart attack. What are YOU gonna do about it?
>and to do what is necessary for the long
>term survival of all major species, human and otherwise, (for, like
>it or not, our fortunes may well be the same) at least if they were
>provided with the facts. If you want to use such naivety as an
>example of at least one instance where I was foolish as you, you are
>free to. Guilty as charged.
>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>set--the more likely the inevitable natural, and social, disasters are to increase
>>>>>>and hit us in the future (starvation, pollution, crime, etc.).
>
>>>Human lives are worth more than those of animals. Care to dispute me? You probably
>>>will. Which only shows how foolish you are. Ethical and Moral Concerns for the
>>>poor spotted owl? Wonderful; who cares how many humans are put out of work? Humans,
>>>in your view, are the LOWEST on the totem pole--the ones who can always be
>>>sacrificed for some weed or worm.
>
>On what are you basing this relative value scale? Instinct? The
>storybook rantings attributed to your chosen diety by his devout
>human scribes?
Note that I have not mentioned religion even once.
>Fact is, humans have no more rights or intrinsic value
>than any other animal,
And this is the sick core of modern liberal "thought". Once you buy
THIS, why, it's easy to build Gulags. And subverting the Constitution
one may do in one's sleep, eh?
>at least if one is to judge from the way those
>same humans exploit and murder those weaker than themselves. Many a
>human child has been blown to perdition because the temporary
>suspension of Christian morality and the fervent belief in the
>value of human life was necessary to achieve some so-called
>"greater good." Individuals can be sacrified, murdered, deprived of
>rights, etc, when necessary. The trick is to give internecine
>extermination a fancy name like "The Great War," "Operation Asskick,"
>etc., then humans can take part in and support the killing of other
>people without compromising their elaborate and phony moral
>constructs, even though the greater good they seek through such
>efforts is often something like a continuing supply of cheap oil to
>flagrantly waste.
Blah, blah, blah. So tell me how your belief that "humans have no more
rights or intrinsic value than any other animal" is inconsistent with
the above list of horrors. Seeing humans as animals is enormously
freeing, isn't it: you can wish for plagues, famines, etc.; you can
justify all sorts of things (ask Stalin and Adolph).
>
>Tell me, did you oppose the Gulf War? Seems you would have had little
>choice, given your aforementioned and selective reverence for the
>lives of humans.
Silly. I approved it. You would NEVER understand why.
>
>Individuals have only the rights that have been
>allocated to them by systems constructed by other animals, or those
>that they can take by force.
At least you admit that you and Jefferson are, shall we say, a tiny
bit at odds...
>I just happen to believe our so-called
>rights can be taken away by forces of non-human origin, and it might
>be wise to consider providing for a environmental "greater good" even
>if it meant sacrificing human individuals. Why would this be any less
>morally defensible than the war-related deaths of almost 100 million
>people in the last century, which resulted largely from greed and
>quests for far less important prizes?
World war II was fought because a madman wanted to rule the world.
Implementing YOUR ideas would require a totalitarian state that would
make Hitler feel inadequate.
Rights: you have the right to keep breathing. You have the right to
be left alone. You have the right to do as you damned well please---
unless you try to harm someone else. In other words, you have the
right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Note that
true rights (the above is an exhaustive list) are only about things you
can do for yourself. You DO NOT have a right to medical care or housing
(unless you can build or pay for your house yourself). Natural forces
can make such rights moot. The right to life does not grant immortality.
So what? We are talking about rights because we have discovered that humans
need to have certain base or core freedoms protected. And we have discovered
that, by HUMAN NATURE, these rights are the minimal set. You types want
them removed--declared meaningless--because only then can you impose your
total control over every single remaining person.
>
>>>>OK; what about the lowly AIDS virus. Morality
>>>dictates that IT has a right to live, eh? So let's stop all those mean scientists
>>>who are working day and night to kil
>>>Cockroaches, too. The humble cockroach has as much of a right to live as you do.
>>>Let's lock up anybody who kills a bug, and outlaw RAID, right?
>
>reductio ad absurdum. Cheap, childish, and not worth a refutation.
>
Reductio is a valid tool. Go ahead; refute it.
>Don't worry about the bugs. They can take care of themselves. They
>will be here long enough to piss on our ashes. And I expect we will be
>seeing some new, much more hardy strains of virus soon; prolific
>little devils that will be able to hold their own against the pop-gun
>arsenal of modern medicine.
>
Again, you are rubbing your hands with anticipation. Does a bear have more rights
than a bug? Than a virus? So only humans have minimal rights, I guess; animals are
all equal, only some are more equal than others--and again, WE show up on the bottom.
>>>>Don't forget bacteria; my fave is the one that was publicized as the "flesh eater"
>>>a year or so ago. If it takes hold in YOUR leg, let it be: it's only trying to
>>>survive, after all.
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>3.The pure moral argument. What indication is there that humans are superior to
>>>>>>animals.
>
>>>If you can ask this question,you are beyond reason. OK, I'll try. Humans are
>>>the only animals who can reason.
>
>Define reason
>
>>>>>Humans are the only ones who can take
>>>>>responsibility for their acts, and therefore they are the only ones who have
>>>>>RIGHTS (the inalienable sort).
>>>>>Humans make the rules; humans set the values;
>>>>>humans are (for better or worse) the BOSS around here; better get used to it.
>
>Inalienable rights are largely imaginary. They are abstract political
>concepts that exist, to the exent they do, only as long as their
>existence suits OUR BOSSES.
And who might they be? Have you taken your medication today?
>
>>>Why are humans superior to animals? BECAUSE WE SAY WE ARE and we can back it
>>>up.
>
>Well, who the hell can argue with that?
>
>Maybe we are making the rules for now. But we may soon have to play a
>new game. And this time we may not get to write the rulebook.
>
Try not to sound so enthusiastic...
>>>>Does Make-a-Wish have the right to send a dying (supposedly) boy to take
>>>another life, whether it be a bear, a man, a frog, or an ant?
>
>>Sure. Yup. You betcha.
>
>>You sound like you're coming from LALA land.
>
>damn good
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If we can do something to protect "American heritage," and to avoid what is happening
>>>>>>to so many other people around the world today, why don't we do it?
>>>>>>
>
>>>Because we are sane and rational?
>
>Maybe because we are spiritually bankrupt, obsessive, materialistic
>consumerist junkies, selfish buffoons obsessed with that which is
>worthless, indifferent to that which is precious, clinging tenaciously
>to a wasteful way of life propped up by a moribund political and
>economic system, and bolstered mentally by the rantings of folks that
>find it profitable in the short term to tell us what we want to hear,
>whether it is the truth or not.
OK; I'll call. YOU GIVE UP materialistic and consumerist ways. Begin by
foregoing electricity and computers. Evil. Evil, they are. Better move
to a mud hut and start scratching for grubs; oops--sorry--you must be a
vegan, eh? Er, do not plants have rights, too?
>
>Who and what we are today will be reviled and seen as incredibly
>ignorant by whomever ultimately inherits the legacy of the mindset
>which successfully elevated "scorched earth" ecological policies
>from mere greed-motivated and short-sighted degradation to "progress"
>and "economic expansion," that we have not only the right but the duty
>to continue.
Right. Now you're predicting the future. Like I said, Malthusians have
a "perfect" batting record at THAT.
>
>I hope you are ready for the world that comes of all of this. Someday
>you may get to find out how useless most of the elements which, in the
>aggregate, comprise your concept of "human superiority" are. Society
>breaks down in a hurry after even small scale calamities (like
>Hurricaine Andrew), and sooner or later the so-called nonexistent
>threats of global warming, deforestation, overfishing and
>overpopulation will cause our economic and social system to implode
>like a rotten pumpkin.
Again, try to control your salivation at the prospect...
>
>That's when you will have to play the new game. So-called "valueless"
>animals already know how. Do you?
>
Do YOU?
Jim Glass
TarlaStar
j...@deltanet.com (Jim Glass) wrote:
>Your word. "Imperialism", eh? So when a lion eats a gazelle, it's
>practicing "inter-species imperialism", too, huh?
No, it's practicing survival. You never see a lion killing a thousand
gazelles at a time and leaving the bodies to waste do you? Only humans
waste like that.
>But suppose for the sake of argument you happen to be right this time.
>We will use up this planet and find new ones to use up. I am dead serious.
>There is a whole solar system out there to exploit and humans will
>exploit it. You types will moan about "polluting the pristine vacuum", or
>messing up the lovely Moon; you'll bitch about terraforming Mars when we
>get around to it. Tough. What ever made you suppose the game ends here?
The game ends when we're too sick or too depleted to be able to MAKE
the non-existant interplanetary space craft you are dreaming will save
your short-sighted ass.
>And even if it takes a long while to move out into the Solar System, there
>are LOTS of resources out there that can extend and prolong things here.
>I know you've been looking forward to mass deaths (of humans, not animals),
>but I'm afraid you are bound to be disappointed.
How you gonna get there, Bubba? We have NO interplantary craft, we
have NO plan for colonization, we have NO way to get any significant
number of people OFF this planet before we destroy it. If it takes a
while...you COULD be dead. You don't stop fucking things up when you
discover that you're a goner, you stop fucking them up LONG before you
get to that point or you and every other superiour human being...dies.
>And by your tone you cannot wait. You actually *WANT* the "man-made" systems
>to collapse; you are DREAMING of mega-deaths of PERSONS (only humans are
>PERSONS; animals are not persons, but you will never understand the point).
>A death of a PERSON is infinitely more serious than that of an animal; again
>you will not understand what virtually every sane human has always under-
>stood. Stop and think about your anti-human, death-worshiping philosophy.
Why? Why is the death of a person more serious than the death of any
other animal on this planet? Don't just say it...support it.
>Yeah; *I* studied logic, philosophy, and history. I noticed that animals
>frequently kill one another to survive. Even plants do so. And you guys
>are whining about a boy who wants to hunt a bear. Where do you *THINK* the
>human race obtained its food before "supermarkets"? Manna from heaven?
The boy may hunt the bear, but the boy won't EAT the bear, will he? He
just wants to kill something. Before supermarkets...we didn't eat
bear. Most humans find the taste of carnivores rather unpleasant.
>Note that I have not mentioned religion even once.
>>Fact is, humans have no more rights or intrinsic value
>>than any other animal,
>And this is the sick core of modern liberal "thought". Once you buy
>THIS, why, it's easy to build Gulags. And subverting the Constitution
>one may do in one's sleep, eh?
Yet you still have not stated WHY you believe humans have greater
value. Spit it out.
>>Individuals have only the rights that have been
>>allocated to them by systems constructed by other animals, or those
>>that they can take by force.
>At least you admit that you and Jefferson are, shall we say, a tiny
>bit at odds...
>>I just happen to believe our so-called
>>rights can be taken away by forces of non-human origin, and it might
>>be wise to consider providing for a environmental "greater good" even
>>if it meant sacrificing human individuals. Why would this be any less
>>morally defensible than the war-related deaths of almost 100 million
>>people in the last century, which resulted largely from greed and
>>quests for far less important prizes?
>World war II was fought because a madman wanted to rule the world.
>Implementing YOUR ideas would require a totalitarian state that would
>make Hitler feel inadequate.
Support this statement. How would having some respect for the world we
live in require a totalitarian state? How would teaching people to
clean up after themselves require such? You ask the Russian people how
much they wish NOW that they'd demanded that their government impose
strict controls on the environment. You ask them now that they have
40% (yes that's right) of their babies being born with birth defects.
Ask them how they enjoy eating those glow in the dark veggies from the
Chernobyl area. Ask them, Bubba. Ask them how fucking superiour they
feel when they're being eaten up by a virus that was released when we
went too damned far into an environment and destroyed the state which
kept these things under control.
--
Reverend Mutha Tarla, Little Sisters of the Perpetually Juicy,
A Proud Jism Schism of the Church of the SubGenius, Worshipping
"Connie" Dobbs and Juicy Retardo since 1986
//www.ionet.net/~bmyers/homepage.html
Alan Bomberger
> On Mon, 20 May 1996 17:46:42 GMT, al...@oes.amdahl.com (Alan Bomberger)
> wrote:
> >
> >Alas, when people actually listen to Newt (a rarety among the Donkey's)
> >they like what he says a lot!.. Newt getting out an speaking will be
> >a very positive force for the GOP. The Donkey's hate it when someone
> >with ideas speaks against them. The 30% who like Newt are the ones
> >that have actually listened to more than the TV news soundbites.
>
> The 30% who agree with him are right-wing greedhead, Bible thumping,
> gun worshiping reactionaries JUST LIKE NEWT!
Thanks for proving my point!
Alan Bomberger
In article
<Pine.A32.3.92a.96052...@homer07.u.washington.edu>, "D.
Braun" <dbr...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> Good point; nothing is ever absolutely proven in science. However, in
> addition to correlation between anthropogenic chemical input to the
> atmosphere and ozone depletion, is the causative link of some of these
> chemicals actually destroying ozone in the atmosphere. This relationship,
> together with a lack of alternative hypotheses that can acout for the
> downward trend in ozone in Antarctica produce a working hypothesis that
human inputs are
> causing it.
>
> The final piece of the puzzle will appear when the trend
> reverses, after anthropogenic atmospheric chemicals that destroy ozone
> are cycled out of the atmosphere or otherwise become non-reactive with
> ozone--- which will take decades for some chloro-flurocarbons.
>
Still not enough. There are studies that counter you causality and a
reversal could have nothing to do with our non-use of chloro-flurocarbons.
Science in this area, as in many other areas, is very hard because a controlled
experiment is impossible. This leaves politicians to the field each with
their pet scientists. Politicians are very loud and obnoxious so I doubt
if we will EVER know whether chloro-flurocarbons have any connection to
the ozone layer. One good volcano can do more damage to the ozone than
all of our flurocarbon use.
D. Braun
On Tue, 21 May 1996, Alan Bomberger wrote:
> In article
> <Pine.A32.3.92a.96052...@homer07.u.washington.edu>, "D.
> Braun" <dbr...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> > Good point; nothing is ever absolutely proven in science. However, in
> > addition to correlation between anthropogenic chemical input to the
> > atmosphere and ozone depletion, is the causative link of some of these
> > chemicals actually destroying ozone in the atmosphere. This relationship,
> > together with a lack of alternative hypotheses that can acout for the
> > downward trend in ozone in Antarctica produce a working hypothesis that
> human inputs are
> > causing it.
> >
> > The final piece of the puzzle will appear when the trend
> > reverses, after anthropogenic atmospheric chemicals that destroy ozone
> > are cycled out of the atmosphere or otherwise become non-reactive with
> > ozone--- which will take decades for some chloro-flurocarbons.
> >
> Still not enough. There are studies that counter you causality and a
> reversal could have nothing to do with our non-use of chloro-flurocarbons.
> Science in this area, as in many other areas, is very hard because a controlled
> experiment is impossible. This leaves politicians to the field each with
> their pet scientists. Politicians are very loud and obnoxious so I doubt
> if we will EVER know whether chloro-flurocarbons have any connection to
> the ozone layer. One good volcano can do more damage to the ozone than
> all of our flurocarbon use.
Ahh the old volcanoe example----are you a fan of the late great (as in bs)
Dixie Lee Ray? I guess there is no point in a sober, scientific approach
to this topic with you. I'm outa here.
Dave Braun
Peter Hipwell
In article <4nrb3o$1...@news02.deltanet.com> j...@deltanet.com (Jim
Glass) writes:
>Yeah; *I* studied logic, philosophy, and history. I noticed that animals
>frequently kill one another to survive. Even plants do so. And you guys
>are whining about a boy who wants to hunt a bear. Where do you *THINK* the
>human race obtained its food before "supermarkets"? Manna from heaven?
>
All proto-humans had double-barrelled shotguns where we now have
"arms". I have seen the fossilized evidence. They keep it hidden in a
special basement of the Natural History museum, only available to
cleared anomalophenomenologists. PLEASE CLEAR THE AREA.
>
>Jim Glass
>
Noted.
--
remememedismemberationalessencephalotherroarrogleamitrouselephagentryagain
**** ZPK SITE PLUG: http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~petehip/ZPKIntro.html ****
remementalistonkalligatrememeiostretchinderogathermalicentichoruptamessinge
lurch
insist that serious eco-problems do not exist. I have often said
something beside lip servive and token contributions from the monied
actors in their smog-shrouded west coast playpens would be a big help,
but I’m not holding my breath.
I Agree with you about the conservancy, but whatever altruistic
efforts I may or may not make in this area are not discussed online. I
don’t bother. Most of those that presume to share such things subject
us all to a heap of unalloyed falsehoods and self-aggrandizing
bullshit.
>>
>>Someone has done a fine job.
>Yeah; *I* studied logic, philosophy, and history. I noticed that animals
>frequently kill one another to survive. Even plants do so. And you guys
>are whining about a boy who wants to hunt a bear. Where do you *THINK* the
>human race obtained its food before "supermarkets"? Manna from heaven?
I’ve killed bears. And deer. And just about everything else that walks
or crawls or flys at one time or another (apologies to Eastwood),
mostly in the foolish days of my youth, and at the time, I felt I had
my reasons. I don’t hunt anymore, but would do so if I needed to.
Hunting is not really the problem, if it is done rationally. Loss of
habitat is. Animals kill. We kill. No argument there. And any human I
felt intended to do bodily harm to me or a member of my family would
have all the air let out of his rib cage in a big hurry. Seem
inconsistent to you? Not really. I'm not the one preaching moral
high-mindedness as a replacement for common sense. And I don’t think
you give two shits for some miserable, starving bugger squatting on
the banks of the Ganges, just because he happens to be human. Do you
own a dog? I do. If you do, tell me you wouldn’t feel worse about it
being run over by a car than you would about this same unnamed and
unseen person falling face first in the river and drowning. I know I
would. The problem with hypocrisy is that it usually shows.
they exist, rather than trying to personally distance ourselves from
Why don’t you address the dozen or so points you’ve tried to duck in
your followup.
lurch
your followup?
It’s already been refuted, anyway. Stomping a cockroach hardly has the
same potential for causing harm as reducing entire continents to
deserts. And we have every justification for fighting to survive. But
outlawing raid is not a bad idea, and other pesticides and
insecticides. But based on what I’ve read here, I guess you intend to
consume those things until you get cancer (hopefully before you
die of your heart attack, timing is the key, here) and issue
belligerent challenges to anyone you have falsely assumed intends to
deprive you of your "right" to do so.
>>>Don't worry about the bugs. They can take care of themselves. They
>>>will be here long enough to piss on our ashes. And I expect we will be
>>>seeing some new, much more hardy strains of virus soon; prolific
>>>little devils that will be able to hold their own against the pop-gun
>>>arsenal of modern medicine.
>>
>>Again, you are rubbing your hands with anticipation. Does a bear have more rights
>>than a bug? Than a virus? So only humans have minimal rights, I guess; animals are
>>all equal, only some are more equal than others--and again, WE show up on the bottom.
For once and for all. There is no bottom or top. Every animal is
concerned with it’s own survival, be it a virus, dog or man. Most
value their own lives more than those of other living creatures,
although higher animals extend their circle of concern to cover
others (usually family) of the same species. This is the way of
things. This is basic truth. I just don’t find it necessary to
Mike Conway
> How do you know that this 40 year pattern is not normal? The earth
> has been around for millions of years. Life has come and been wiped
> out by cycles of weather, volcanic activity, meteors, etc. Why do
> you assume that we as impotent slime have any significant influence
> on the patterns that will eventually end life as we know it.
That's completely possible. This whole spinoff of the original thread
about the 104th congress is due to others attempting to call all of
these global change issues a 'hoax' and the product of environmental
'wacko's'.
Responsible science isn't about jumping up and down, it by nature is
very cautious about its conclusions. Thats why I think it's the best
way to understand these issues. If you have another theory, all you
have to do is provide evidence and science will (perhaps painfully) come
your way.
To dismiss a theory because 'we dont know for sure' is a false
arguement. By its nature, science cant 'know' anything at all for sure.
What science can do is observe and base conclusions on the weight of the
evidence.
CZ
rocki...@aol.com (RockinJill) wrote:
>FizzTwo writes:
>>Voltaire writes:
What specific policies of Newt's don't you like. I bet you know
little about him or his policies.
--------------
CZ
--------------------------------------
"The President has kept all of the promises he intended to keep." - George Stephanopoulos, defending Bill Clinton, on Larry King Live - 2/16/96.
"Clinton's an unusually good liar. Unusually good. Do you realize that ?" - Democratic Senator Bob Kerry.
--------------------------------------------
earthfirst
Dennis McClain-Furmanski wrote:
>
> What the fuck is this, the electronic substitute for crayon scrawls?
>
> You sure look sofuckingphisticated, mixing up your space bar and return
> key like that.
>
> Now try UsInG yOuR ShIfT kEy every other time. The imagery will go
> perfectly with the rest of your bullshit. Like a ransom note made out of
> cut-up newspaper letters from someone on the little school bus.
It's a shame I have to read this before I can recognise it for
the drivel it is. If you were talking I would probably not
have been near enough to hear you in the first place as I tend
to avoid jerks.
This person may not be using their first language, may not
have figured out their computer yet, and is probably a much
more competent human being than you. Did you ever make
amistake and have it pointed out nicely? Your mistake was
arrogance, this mistake is ignorance of something.
These two lines say it all really:
> Doktor DynaSoar Iridium -- dyn...@infi.net -- >Punctuator of Evolution
--
http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/earthfirst.html
South Downs EF!, Prior House
6, Tilbury Place, Brighton BN2 2GY, UK
http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/wild/whp.html
earthfirst
Dennis McClain-Furmanski wrote:
>
> On 05-18-96, rsu...@goodnet.com wrote:
>
> You sure look sofuckingphisticated, mixing up your space bar and return
> key like that.
I just looked at what Arvind wrote, I think there is something
wrong with your equipment.
Andy
> --
DK
j...@deltanet.com (Jim Glass) wrote:
>I know it causes you great pain, but the FACT is that human beings
>happen to be the boss biped on this here planet; WE MAKE THE RULES.
If an airborne AIDs type virus evolves due to our (very well
demonstrated by you) egocentric, self-important attitude, you may come
to realize that were do NOT make the rules and we are NOT the boss.
>More importantly, all -VALUES- are human values. NOTHING has value
>unless a person gives it a value. Trees and spotted owls are inherently
>VALUELESS; they have only that value we decide to bestow on them.
This is the talk and attitude of a sociopath.
>That this elementary point must be stated explicitly is an indicator
>of how far into illogic and unreason we have slipped--especially you
>tree-huggers.
>Gee, that's what the Unabomber said...
>Why, yes; it is. The stuff is OURS; we own it. We get to say how it is
>used. Or how it is disposed. Including "habitats", "meat", etc.
How naive. Do you sincerely believe we have this kind of power?
There are virus that kill thier host. That hardly means they own it.
It just means they are an evolutionary dead-end. I doubt we can kill
the planet but we can destroy much of what gives us a sense of joy and
probably ourselves as well. The roaches won't give a damn about the
beauty of a clear blue sky but they will more than likely continue to
exist.
>And so what you want to do is use the power of government to -FORCE- people to
>stop growing, selling, and eating meat. You want to force people to become
>vegitarians, because only YOU know the one true way to live. I can't wait until
>the Protein StormTroopers arrive at my door.
The previous post said nothing of the kind. Try reading rather than
just looking for something to rant about. They suggested that it was
wiser to raise bison rather than cattle for a variety of reasons.
>Human lives are worth more than those of animals. Care to dispute me?
Now who is making the value judgement?
> You probably
>will. Which only shows how foolish you are. Ethical and Moral Concerns for the
>poor spotted owl? Wonderful; who cares how many humans are put out of work? Humans,
>in your view, are the LOWEST on the totem pole--the ones who can always be
>sacrificed for some weed or worm. OK; what about the lowly AIDS virus. Morality
>dictates that IT has a right to live, eh? So let's stop all those mean scientists
>who are working day and night to kill it.
Again, I suggest you try reading the post rather than just looking for
a way to rant.
>Cockroaches, too. The humble cockroach has as much of a right to live as you do.
>Let's lock up anybody who kills a bug, and outlaw RAID, right?
Raid has probably done more damage to us than the cockroach but that
is not your point. Unfortunately you don't seem to be able to
assimate anyone else point or thoughts.
>Don't forget bacteria; my fave is the one that was publicized as the "flesh eater"
>a year or so ago. If it takes hold in YOUR leg, let it be: it's only trying to
>survive, after all.
>If you can ask this question,you are beyond reason. OK, I'll try. Humans are
>the only animals who can reason. Humans are the only ones who can take
>responsibility for their acts, and therefore they are the only ones who have
>RIGHTS (the inalienable sort). Humans make the rules; humans set the values;
>humans are (for better or worse) the BOSS around here; better get used to it.
>Why are humans superior to animals? BECAUSE WE SAY WE ARE and we can back it
>up.
This one gave me a good chuckle. What most of us who want to protect
the environment are saying is that humans must take responsibily for
their acts. And do you really think that humans are the only animals
that can reason? Do your think we sprang spontaneously from some gods
loins? We have a great deal in common with most other mammals.
Reason, problem solving, and even language has been scientifically
demonstrated in many of our close relatives. Many mammal sacrifice
their own lives to protect their offspring. Our genes differ from the
chimpanzee by only about 1%. I realize that none of this will impress
you because of your own need to justify your self-importance but you
might take some time to think.
>>
>>If we can do something to protect "American heritage," and to avoid what is happening
>>to so many other people around the world today, why don't we do it?
>>
>Because we are sane and rational?
>Jim Glass
Pardon me? Are you saying that we do NOT preserve a healthy
environment because we are sane and rational? I have not found one
grain of sanity in anything you have ranted about. DK