Oh, I feel fairly certain that we will manage to keep it just habitable enough for US…our extreme self-involvement will probably protect us from ourselves. After a fashion. But it is not US I am concerned about. We are already rendering it uninhabitable for the “other nations” with whom we share it. As one who says he is in favor of animal rights, I would think you would know this already.
**
Pardon? Our whole history is a series of slippery slopes, with natural environments being rapidly destroyed the minute we decide to “exploit the natural resources” of a given area. My god, man, show me a credible instance where this has NOT happened! I’m certainly not living in Eden, are you? (Oh, I’m sure there are a few, but on balance, the idea that we will trash most of what we touch is a pretty safe bet.)
I’d just like to say that should Clinton state after the inaugural that his first action as a private citizen will be to declare martial law and rename himself Norton II, it will be the coolest thing I’ve ever heard of.
I said “Thank heaven we won’t have someone who agreed with this sentiment running things.” to which GADARENE replied:
GAD, mon ami, if you’re going to law school you’d better brush up on your ‘careful-reading’ skills. I know (a) Gore doesn’t agree with this; and (b) if he did, he’d never in a million years actually say it. That’s why I said “thank heaven we won’t have someone who agreed with this sentiment running things,” as opposed to “thank heaven we won’t have Gore running things.” I actually don’t mind Gore (though I don’t agree with some of his politics); but I do think having someone like Stoidela support you has got to fall in the category of ‘with friends like these, who needs enemies?’
STOIDELA:
I’m sorry – where do you live again? I’m pretty sure it’s a place that does not “belong” to you but rather to itself or to everyone. A place that would be a pristine wilderness if not for the degradations of you and your ancestors. May I suggest you start your save the planet program by reclaiming the land you yourself live on for Mother Earth?
Not every removal of a natural resource “destroys” the planet. We all live off the planet – including you, as you sit in your wood house, eating food that was grown in ground “taken from the wilderness” and wearing clothes assembled in polluting factories. If you think that those of us who live out where some wilderness actually still remains are somehow leeches on the natural world but you, in your concrete city, are not, then you are deluded. And if you think that those of us who live out here do not realize the value of what we have and are not responsible enough to have the stewardship of it, then you are patronizing. If YOU cannot live a life that does not negatively impact the natural world – and you can’t – then perhaps it’s time YOU moved. Where to, I’ve no idea . . . maybe another planet?
Let’s see, from where I am, there’s an animal preserve at Ft. Belvoir where no hunting is allowed, so lots of deer there all the time. There’s the Blue Ridge Mountains not too far away. There’s Roosevelt Island, where even bicycles are not allowed. I can see unspoiled nature within a very short distance in any direction. I can also enjoy the architectural beauty of Washington, DC.
See, what your cynicism blinds you to is that it is possible to have both development and natural resource preservation; we don’t have to put fences around things and point to them from a distance and say, “Look! Nature!” Nor do we have to burn them to the ground to use their resources. An all-or-nothing approach by either side is senseless.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Zenster *
**[li]That same state’s Attorney General, a member of your party, imposes arbitrary deadlines that benefit you.[/li][/quote]
** I believe you mean the state’s Secretary of State (Fl Attorney General was a dem), but in any case, yes, Sec of State Harris’ actions did come under fire (and she wasn’t ‘just a republican’ but the co chair of the Bush election team in the state). Oddly enough, in my state (MI) as well, the Sec of State (a Rep) was also the co chair of Bush campaign, and the Florida situation led to a call from Republicans to enact legislation forbidding any Sec. of State to take such on such a role in any election.
Thank you very much for the correction Wring.
[sub]Maybe you could drop by my “Ideas” thread in MPSIMS? I’d really appreciate your specific input.[/sub]
Jodi: Actually, it teaches me not to pull things from their proper context. Here’s the full quote of yours to which I had responded:
Now, you may not have meant the “someone” in the second sentence to refer to the “candidate [Stoidela] personally support[s]” in the first sentence, but I’d have to say that it was, at least, less than clear. I didn’t get that you had shifted gears and were talking about a completely different and hypothetical “someone” who shared Stoidela’s indifference to the desires of Alaskans; you usually write in a straightforward enough manner that I read the two sentences as being linked.
There’s only mild sarcasm in the preceding paragraph; my apologies for misinterpreting your intent.
Of course I see that it is possible, I just don’t see it as being likely. And in most cases, it isn’t. And these days, in the most critical cases, it isn’t.
As i’m guessing your probably know, PL, it takes much more than a few acres to preserve most species. It also doesn’t really work to take out chunks in the middle here and there. Sometimes, in order to save something, you really do have to just leave the whole damn thing alone.
OK, let’s say the wilderness belongs to “everyone”. What does that mean? Does that mean that the people who live there have exactly the same amount of input as the people who live in New York? I’m willing to grant that people outside of Alaska have some legitimate interest in development in Alaska. But you must grant that Alaskans should have more input than, say, you.
And what makes you think that opening ANWR to oil exploration is gonna destroy Alaska? Did oil exploration in Prudhoe bay destroy Alaska? No, it did not. Now, it is a legitimate argument to say that the ecological problems caused by the Prudhoe Bay drilling weren’t worth what we got out of it. Fine, we could argue about that. But it didn’t destroy Alaska, the moose and caribou are still there. The worst environmental problem was Prince Wiliam Sound, and that wasn’t directly caused by the oil exploration itself.
Perhaps you really can’t understand. Most people who live in Alaska live there because they like the wilderness, they like having elbow room, they like having wildlife, they like hunting and fishing, they like not having any close neighbors. They like the wilderness because that is their home. I can’t understand your viewpoint, that we should have wilderness but we aren’t entitled to actually SEE it or LIVE there.
And you really have no conception of exactly how large Alaska is, or really anything about it. That’s why Alaskans are likely to disagree with you. Not because you are an environmentalist, but because you are an ignorant envirnomentalist who doesn’t care what harm your policies would cause to us other humans. Environmentalism without humanism is going to fail, and fail spectacularly, since you are going to alienate the very people who could have made the decisions you want.
Note: if you read carefully, you will notice that I have never said whether I think developing ANWR is a good idea or not. We’re not yet at the point where we can debate what the decision should be, we still have to decide who has the authority to make the decisions. If you think Alaskans have no special authority over Alaska, then what happens if the lower 48 starts demanding oil exploration over the objections of Alaskans? Alaskans tend to be an ornery, contrary bunch. If you start trying to railroad them, they’ll oppose you out of principle when they might have agreed with you to begin with.
Mr. Zambezi, what part of “I do not make any wild claims of conspiracy.” don’t you understand? I make no effort to establish any sort of conspiracy. I merely make the point that many conspicuous and potential conflicts of interest resulted in Bush’s success. M’kay?
IS ther esomething ironic about a denizen of LA being high and mighty about how we have to preserve wilderness?
You crazy Californians. You need electricity for the computer, heat, air conditioning, etc., But lord, don’t drill any oil, and don’t dam the river, and don’t use nuclear power and don’t build polluting power plants…
truth is, there is a price to liviing our US lifestyle. YOu can’t drive a car and demand that we don’t drill for oil.
Everyone is an environmentalist. We differ, I believe, over what is pragmatic and what is unworkable…and who should decide which is which.
Zenster, I could post one of those lists of people who died during the clinton Reign and then say “…but I am not making any wild claims of a conspiracy.” and I might still be making wild claims of a conspiracy.
No matter how many zeroes you add together, they all equal zero. I could put together a similar list of “questionable” items that point to a democratic conspiracy…but I do not make any wild claims of a conspiracy.
What is wrong with destroying natural life or exploiting the enviroment? Because thats the way nature works. Out of destruction life is reborn. Not destroying these old growth forests in part could destroy them in whole. Because old growth forests catch fire very easily and are meant to so younger trees can appear.
Btw you can’t argue with someone as irrational as Stoid:)
Yeah, and trees cause more pollution than cars, and there is more acreage under forest in the US now than there was in 1492, and if the icecaps melt it won’t raise sea level,
and God won’t let us destroy his creation, and the check’s in the mail, and we can still be friends, and OJ’s looking for the real killers…JDM
You again. If you want to do this, remember that voting for a third party candidate is the same as voting for the Republican candidate. :rolleyes:
Really? He beats out David Duke and (until recently) Pat Buchanan?
People on this board have a wrong-headed obsession with putative “credentials” concerning politics (I remeber threads on Hilary’s and the new Senator from Missouri). There ain’t no such thing as credentials in politics. Certain academic and life experiences may make you more desirable as a candidate or political commentator, lack of them doesn’t disqualify you. IMO, Mr. Moore isn’t credible, but not because of his credentials. If a Ph.D in PoliSci made some of Mr. Moore’s comments, he wouldn’t be any more or less credible.
You got so reasonable and sensible that I decided not to argue this point with you any longer.
Suffice it to say that I am happy to be the hypocritcal Angeleno who holds the most radical view possible. Somebody has to, and since I have zero power to impose my views on anyone in this, or any other circumstance, i wouldn’t worry too much about how over the top I may appear to you.
My hope is only that you and others might stop and consider the idea that human beings are not the most important thing on the planet, that maybe all the other beings are equally important, and the habitat they require to survive is equally important.
(By the way, the caribou and moose might be doing alright…what of the bears and wolves? It is usually the large carnivores that suffer first)
Wow, Mr. Zambezi… you are entertained and amused by the act of killling! What part do you enjoy the most…the blood? Gutting it? Feeling the warm entrails in your hands? Or maybe you just enjoy the stunned look of pain and confusion on the face of the animal…so many things to enjoy, I can’t imagine how you could pick just one favorite! Death is so cool, isn’t it? Especially causing it for other beings…that is SO neat! I’ll bet you really envy the Japanese who get to hack dolphins to death in a great big orgy of squealing gore, don’t you? Cuz that just has to be the coolest thing in the world to do… Wow.
Oh, and I forgot the best part! When you watch that animal die in a spray of blood and gore, hopefully screaming in pain and terror, your dick gets rock hard, doesn’t it? I’ll bet your wife gets it really good right after a manly day of death-delivering, doesn’t she?
Dear, oh dear, yes I made the mistake of typing Attorney General instead of Secretary of State. I still firmly believe that the Florida SoS could have delayed her decision and eliminated any appearance of conflict of interest. Not doing so has destroyed her credibility in my eyes. Now that we have that over with.
If you are attempting to construe my post as some some sort of “Left Wing Conspiracy Theory” raoulortega, I again refer you to what I said to Mr. Zambezi.
What part of “I do not make any wild claims of conspiracy.” don’t you understand? I make no effort to establish any sort of conspiracy. I merely make the point that many conspicuous and potential conflicts of interest resulted in Bush’s success. M’kay? **
[/QUOTE]
Here’s the full quote of yours to which I had responded:
