Rob McNair-Huff  06-04-2003
05:55 PM ET (US)
|
Dave, I started the discussion ages ago to comment about logging policy in the Pacific Northwest. I am not sure how to answer how it was promoted...I simply made a post on my Web site with my opinion and invited people to comment here...
|
Dave Christenson 06-04-2003
12:57 PM ET (US)
|
This topic came up as one of 2 hits googling "epa" on www.quicktopic.com
Google doesn't find any Web pages with links to the topic.
Who started this topic, and how did you promote it?
BTW, I work at the US EPA, and started a topic: EPA Cabinet Level Legislation http://www.quicktopic.com/22/H/6ynh3H6Svt6S2
Reorganizing EPA could indirectly rewrite environmental laws.
Also note, EPA is not a land management agency, so we don't have a whole lot to do with timber sales (although we do comment on Environmental Impact Statements
|
|
Michael Larsen
02-25-2003
11:18 AM ET (US)
|
As I suspected, David, you are uninterested in debating issues - only flaming. And, yes, I am guilty as charged of name-calling - my apologies to all "hate-filled, ignorant people".
|
|
David Jones
02-24-2003
03:04 PM ET (US)
|
It's interesting how a person can accuse someone of "name calling and outrageous claims" while "sitting at their keyboards in the comfort of their private spaces," then turn around and do the exact same thing! Just a tad bit hypocritical, don't you think?
|
|
Michael Larsen
02-21-2003
08:20 PM ET (US)
|
I'm a humble IT professional for the last 20 years, with a fondness for Macs but supportive of all computing choices that meet the need. I normally don't partake in forums because the level of discourse for some individuals (the Alberts and the Davids in the world) most often degenerates into name calling and outrageous claims that would never stand up long in face to face communication, out of fear of physical reprisal and/or intelligent, informed counter-argument. But, the more and more frequent postings in many forums by hate-filled, ignorant people attempting to stifle democratic debate gets my fingers moving. For some reason, these people, sitting at their keyboards in the comfort of their private spaces feel empowered to spew whatever misinformed nonsense pops into their heads. They buy into propaganda as truth and attempt to silence opposition to their views through intimidation and threat. They feel no need to back-up any of their claims with facts or to have any type of reasoned, open-minded debate on issues. We will never totally agree on all issues, but through honest exchange of ideas and a willingness to entertain opposing views, we can find at least a common middle ground where we can move forward in all areas of human endeavor. This is the basis of democracy and the promise of the internet. "Love it or Leave it", "with us or against us" pronouncements are NOT democratic, patriotic or even instructive - they are ignorant.
However, in the current political climate, it appears that being extremely ignorant and radical, to the point of frothing at the mouth, while demonizing and/or insulting anyone or anything we disagrees with is, somehow, patriotic and righteous! We have an administration that openly admits to ignoring history because it may interfere with their Total Domination, imperialistic plans (the president himself admits that he doesn't read and it shows in his elementary school usage of language; as a matter of fact, this entire administration acts like elementary school children - no offense to the children - with their name-calling and threats to long-time allies and concerned citizens alike); they openly disregard the opinions of anyone, anywhere who disagree with them, regardless of knowledge and experience; they openly foment class-warfare, racism and bigotry by their domestic and foreign policies; they are openly trying to divide people and nations by flooding all mass media with the most transparent propaganda since World War II and the Cold War; and worst of all, they have reduced a very complex world into an "us versus them", "black and white", "God and the Devil" morality play with themselves as saviors.
Humans are naturally "dualistic" - good/bad, right/left, up/down, either/or, etc. Most "western" languages are built upon this; almost every word invokes and is dependent for meaning on its opposite. We seem to have to distill everything down to two opposing forces. (We are much more comfortable when there are two entities battling it out and tend to be confused when a third or fourth or more is introduced. Why is it so difficult for this country to have more than two significant political parties? Look how long the PC vs. Mac battle has been going on and how the introduction of Linux/Unix into the mix is viewed by many as either irrelevant or confusing the issue - we have to have two sides, not three or more, so the third has to fail or disappear so that there can be a decisive battle to declare a "winner", a "leader", the "truth"!) This dualism severly limits our perception of reality and any meaningful advancement of our race, unless we actively work to unite these "halves" into a "whole". This can be accomplished by realizing and accepting there are no "absolutes"; for every two-sided issue or black and white pronouncement, there is an infinite amount of in-betweens or non-linear solutions, limited only by our ability or inability to define and comprehend them. For every decision made, there are an infinite amount of others that could be made. The yin/yang symbol was an attempt by "eastern" thinking people to represent that dualism is not absolute, but part of an infinitely larger reality; nothing is all black and nothing is all white - within each is the seed of the other and they are in constant, fluidic motion - things will never be all "this way" or all "that way". By constantly choosing sides and demonstrating intolerance for nuance and difference, it becomes easy for the simple, uneducated mind to murder, maim and destroy opposition or the "other" without recognizing the "other" within themselves. And it is very easy for power-hungry people to manipulate this situation.
This way of looking at the world does not mean that anything goes and why should we strive toward "goodness" when "evilness" will always be around to counter it. Our dualistic tendency to seek "pleasure" over "pain" is one of our more useful survival characteristics - one we share with the rest of the life forms on the planet. If we expect the world to survive, what we need to do for the pleasure of ALL people, ALL animals, ALL of the earth, is seek a more "positive" balance between the constant dance of black and white by tempering absolute thinking. For every action, there is reaction, but appropriate actions lead to appropriate reactions. You cannot pollute the air and cut down the trees without replacing them and expect to breathe for much longer. You cannot kill all the animals without nurturing and replacing them and expect the food chain to survive. You cannot poison the water and soil without replacing them and expect not to poison yourself. You cannot consume and destroy finite resources without replacing them with infinite resources and expect to prosper. You cannot threaten, insult and intimidate your neighbors and expect them to love you. You cannot wage war, murder and theft and expect to live a life of peace. Imagine!
|
Rob McNair-Huff 02-21-2003
11:32 AM ET (US)
|
OK....I have to comment now. David, the Kyoto Treaty would have penalized the US because we are the most wasteful and polluting society on the planet. We are greedy not just in terms of money but also in our blatant disregard for the long-term health of the planet and a disregard for being good citizens with the rest of the world.
Your comments about the UN are way off base. The US doesn't even pay its full dues to be a member of the UN, and just as it is trying to do right now with this war against Iraq, we manipulate the UN to try and build coalitions to carry out US policy. If the UN doesn't agree, we try to use NATO as the excuse for going to war.
A complete failure to examine the real reasons for US policy cannot be claimed as seeing the light. Rather it is buying into the status quo, which is an easy option for those of us in the US because every policy benefits us at the expense of the rest of the world.
|
|
David Jones
02-21-2003
11:25 AM ET (US)
|
Scott, it's good to see I'm not the only one here who sees the light. I'm not sure yet whether I'm totally convinced we need to invade Iraq and eliminate Saddam right now--North Korea is potentially a bigger threat at the moment. Regarding Saddam, to me it's not a matter of "if" but "when."
You're right--the Kyoto Treaty would have punished the U.S. and cost us billions when we aren't the worst offenders by a long shot. The same thing happens in the U.N.--we pay for most of the operations cost of the U.N., then get beat up on a regular basis by everyone else.
I read something about Greenpeace many years ago. Something to the effect that they staged the videos that showed baby seals being clubbed so they could cause an outrage. I'm not saying that baby seals weren't being clubbed, just that they staged the videos--ironically, making themselves just as guilty. Like I said, it's been many years since I read about that (1989-1990?) so I won't be able to readily produce the article (so don't ask).
|
Rob McNair-Huff 02-21-2003
10:19 AM ET (US)
|
Thanks for your comments, Scott. I cannot agree on any of your points, but it is good to hear anyway. Different strokes...
|
|
Scott J. Little
02-21-2003
08:06 AM ET (US)
|
Sorry, but I don't share your sentiments. In fact, I would edit the headline...
"Is there an environmental crusade that isn't flawed?"
First off though, about this "obsession to rush to war"...
Nearly one and a half years have passed since the attacks of September 2001, and Saddam the Supreme Butcher has had well over 10 years to comply. How much longer should we wait? Of course, our administration could follow the lead of those masters of appeasement...the French. They have had their collective head in the sand since the final brick was laid at the Maginot Line.
As for environmental *laws*, the Kyoto Protocol comes to mind. This scam, as with the gutless United Nations, would have placed far too much of the burden on the United States, while giving countries like China virtually free reign.
The changes at the EPA concerning power plants was distorted by the eco-myrmidons. With the new rules, a power plant can take steps to generate more energy...if a decrease in emissions is also introduced. Under the old plan, a power plant would have had great difficulty in modernizing, even if the result was greater efficiency.
When I was younger and easily mis-led, I worked for a stretch as a Greenpeace staffer. I learned, first hand, the absurdity of their argument. We would drive around endlessly in an old, inefficient full-size van, pleading with others to avoid fossil-fuels like the plague. We would sit on our comfy wooden chairs and discuss the horrors of the logging industry. After lacing up our genuine leather hiking boots, we would march off to the post office to mail our support checks for the PETA cult.
George Carlin may have summed it up best when he said (I'm paraphrasing)...
"The environmentalists don't really care about the environment...not in the abstract. They just want a clean place to play."
|
|
David Jones
02-20-2003
07:31 PM ET (US)
|
I have no problem with your last statement. My main beef is with environmentalists that wish to return forests to their "pristine" state. Not only is that impossible, but it's also nearly impossible to say what a forest's pristine state was. According to some studies we have more forest land in America now than in the 1700s when the country was founded. The main reason being the we now have better abilities to fight fires that then would ravage state-sized areas. Should loggers concentrate on logging only on land where they have logged previously? Sure. That sounds like a good compromise to me.
|
Rob McNair-Huff 02-20-2003
06:30 PM ET (US)
|
David, it is clear that we simply have to agree to disagree. I cannot agree with your conclusions, even though you make good points in some areas.
The irony is that while you blame "liberals" for counting on the government to advance their causes and to help save forests, it is that same government that you loath who holds the keys to creating a better America for all of us.
I love forests and all of the variety of life that can be found in forests, including Nothern Spotted Owls and Marbled Murrelets. A return to the wholesale clear cutting policies that were the norm in the 1980s and early 1990s will spell an end to what little natural forest remains. I think we have clear cut enough and it is time for those advocates of sustainable forestry to start practicing what they preach. Log only second growth lands...
|
|
Jamie
02-20-2003
06:24 PM ET (US)
|
Ok. He is not joking. I am speechless.
|
|
David Jones
02-20-2003
05:14 PM ET (US)
|
Yes, yes, you can usually find some article to back up what you want to say. For instance, take a look at this:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-217.html
The difference between Sean's article of choice and mine is that his is sponsored by a university and while Santa Clara University is a private university, that doesn't change the fact that most universities are hotbeds of unbridled and unchallenged liberal thought (my ex-wife went to La Sierra University, a Seventh-Day Adventist organization, and they were every bit as liberal as the Cal State system). My article comes from an independent organization that, according to their motto, is dedicated to "Individual Liberty, Limited Government, Free Markets and Peace."
Hey, Kristie!!! If these groups are already buying land and maintaining it, why are you complaining so much? And no, there are no old growth forests where I live. I live in Southern California where it seems like every single grain of dirt is being built upon. Do I like it? No. Can I do anything about it (besides moving)? No. Do I expect the government to make it better? Absolutely not. In fact, it occurs to me that the most liberal states (California, Washington, New York, Massachusetts) are among the worst for overcrowding while many more conservative states (Nevada, Texas, Wyoming) don't have these problems. I know climate has something to do with it, too, but I digress. Back on topic, I love forests. I love the beauty of God's creation and the solitude I can experience there.
And for those who continue to use the forum to bag on our President, I must confess that I don't think he's the best choice we could have had--he's not nearly conservative enough. I believe he's a good-hearted, God-fearing man that is doing the best he can to get this country our of the Clinton recession (it did start before he left office, you know). There's an interesting quote I've read on a Mac-related message board: "The Mac isn't the perfect computer, it just seems that way compared to Windows." I would change that slightly: "George W. Bush isn't the perfect president...he just seems that way compared to Clinton (or Bore--I mean Gore--for that matter."
Rob, I will enjoy the extra money that the federal government has not extracted from me the past couple years. I will also enjoy the extra money the feds won't steal from me in the future. If you don't feel you're entitled to it...send it in! I'm sure they'll accept it. In fact, I would propose that any liberals who think that taxes should be raised should start sending more of their money in on a regular basis. If all the liberals in California sent in just $100 extra a year, we could probably balance the federal deficit. Truth be told, though, I doubt anyone would have the backbone to "put their money where their mouth is" in such a bold way.
By the way, if big businesses and the "seriously wealthy" are already paying much, much more in taxes as a percentage of their salary, aren't they entitled to just as much of a tax cut as everyone else (percentage-wise)? Seems to me that if everyone was paying a flat 10 percent then no one could complain about wealthy people not paying "their fair share." I'm sure some fomentors of class warfare would still say the rich got a bigger break though.
|
|
Sean
02-20-2003
03:56 PM ET (US)
|
Interesting reading on this issue...
http://www.scu.edu/Ethics/publications/iie/v4n1/homepage.html
|
|
Kristine
02-20-2003
03:37 PM ET (US)
|
Hey Davie! Wake up, groups already do exist to buy land as you suggested. These groups have been doing so for years, and guess what else? They manage and maintain the land and don't rely upon the U.S. De-forest Service to maintain wild areas in our nation because they know that the government isn't good at managing wild areas.
The reason that people in the Northwest no longer have logging jobs is because they logged themselves out of existence. Go to a town like Reedsport, OR, and you won't find many trees left to cut. Look at their rivers and you won't find nearly the fish that lived there before the trees were cut, trees that held the silt on the hills rather than letting it flow into the rivers. Lowland valleys have more frequent and more drastic flooding since the trees are no longer there to suck up the excess water. And yet, people like you seem to think that cutting down every last old-growth tree is a good thing.
Old-growth forests took centuries to form, we've managed to destroy most of them on the West Coast in a little over 150 years. They will never exist again as long as humans live here. That doesn't mean I advocate killing everyone. It doesn't mean I advocate living in caves (although at times it doesn't seem like such a bad idea for some people). But I certainly don't want to see the last few remaining stands of old-growth forest denuded just so the big Shrub in the White House can make a few more points and score more bucks for his cronies.
I'm curious about where you live. I suspect you've never actually been in an old-growth forest. I suspect you live in one of those states that have no old trees left because your attitude is one I find more often in people who have not experienced the forests. Oh, and by the way, I KNOW what it means to lose your job due to the forests disappearing. Most of my family made their livings in the forest industry. Many of them wish they'd known then what they know now.
May green things surround you always.
|
Rob McNair-Huff 02-20-2003
03:25 PM ET (US)
|
David, there are a large number of environmental groups buying plots of land to preserve them. Unfortunately, most of these lands don't contain old growth forest but instead they are the lands previously abused by the cut-and-run timber companies. Yes, it would be great if this situation only involved private land, but many timber companies get their resources in giveaways from the federal government. The U.S. Forest Service loses millions of dollars each year selling the rights to log federally owned lands.
The issue here is not that "liberals" want the government to take care of their own concerns but rather than the government should start acting in the long-term interests of the taxpayers who really own these lands. Selling trees at a loss, causing the widespread destruction of industries like the fishing industry by not enforcing land management rules, and allowing private companies to play cut-and-run at the expense of those in the local economies affected by predatory logging practices is not in the interest of the public that owns these public lands.
I agree that most often the government has a poor record of managing public lands. It gives its resources away at a loss because the old system, based in a time when we all believed that the supplies of trees were endless, is still supported by lobbyists in both of the major political parties. The system is set up to benefit those in power, and though it may seem like it to you, David, the few hundred bucks you have saved under the Bush Administration's "tax cuts" are really just a shell game. You get a few bucks now, big businesses and the seriously wealthy get a lot more money now, and your kids and your kids' kids will be paying for this give away for many years to come. Enjoy...
|
|
|
New Topic
My Topics
Views:
1600
(Unique:
745
) / Subscribers:
1 | What's this?
