Hi riverman again, sounds like you are not ready to go up north. That
is good, because we definitly need you down here.

The butterfly story, was sad, not cute. It was the first and only
butterfly I saw all summer! As a kid growing up here, I use to see
lots.

I do enjoy our converstion more now, and I am sorry that it is so
painful for you. But you will get stronger for the exercise.

I went to Colo Sch of Mines in late 60' early 70', so I tip my hand a
little to you. Studied Geophysics, physics, etc. worked for a few
years in oil field. Since you invited me, I'll stay around a little
longer if this tipping does not shut you down.


This is an invitation for another conversation. I assume from your trailing
sentence that you are implying that the current BLM people are clueless, and
that what 'should be done in the future' is to build more dams? If this
assumption is correct, then I'm going to decide not to even pursue this
topic with you, as it is very thoroughly hashed out in many forums. Its a
very very slippery slope, so in the spirit of maintaining any sort of
reasonable discussion, we should stay off it. EOT for that topic, for me,
with you.

I personally don't care to see a whole lot more dams, though I thought
that Two Forks could have been ok. If a dam is needed, I still believe
they should be considered, though I realize that radical
environmentalism would not accept that option.


Hopefully, that doesn't mean that you don't want to talk to me any
longer?


In the nature of my work, I have spent time with some Federal
Engineers.. One EE had trouble wiring a flashlight. So I am not
convinced about the environment. In fact, I had another situation
where I had to secure the EPA water test lab at Denver Fed CTR. That
was a disaster. They had one door to secure, and it almost took an act
of Congress to accomplish that.


Hmm, you have to connect the dots with that one for me. I won't deny that
bureacracy can be a nightmare, even a waste of time and a distractor to what
you are trying to accomplish. But I also can't deny that it is a real part
of managing a huge nation like the US, so its a demon we must learn to work
with. Are you implying that engineers are a bunch of overtrained,
overspecialized, overeducated fools? That seems like a rather thin opinion
of the value of education. So much for 'No Child Left Behind'.....I'd think
that engineers, etc, might represent the highest form of success in our
education system; one that we aspire more people to attain.

Additionally, are you proposing that, because one EE could not wire a
flashlight, then its possible that hundreds of thousands of scientists and
research organizations in dozens of countries over several decades are all
WRONG and that there really is no danger from excess pollutants, mercury in
our water, deteriorating air and water quality? That all that medical
evidence is wrong, that all those 'intellectual elites' are just following a
Liberal goose chase, making all sorts of silly, useless rules that end up
hurting our country by inhibiting development and keeping companies from
making profits? Wow, now THAT is a leap....

I am saying, I do not have a lot of faith in scientific bureaucrats,
or bureaucratic scientist. They all have their personal agendas,
especially if they are tapped into the "titty" you speak of in a bit.
We all have our personal agendas, just don't ask me to pay for one
that I don't believe in, and then act like I am happy about it.

That point of view is reinforced with your statement about "we may wake
up
some day to a different world, but we will wake up, and adapt." It sounds
that your nihlist point of view is to go ahead and do whatever we want,
to
hell with any foresight of consequences, and we'll just adapt to the
results. Hmm, maybe YOU can live with that strategy, but I'm pretty sure
that I can't. Personally, I want to be proactive. I want to have
forsight,
and to protect any dwindling resources...which includes uncontrolled
rivers,
uncut forests, and closed wilderness areas. I prefer diversity, abhor
monoculture, and I know that there is much to be learned from natural
systems that we don't yet understand, or even know about. Species are
driven
to extiction before we even catalogue or study them, often (or 'mostly')
because of unguided and careless industrial practices. I believe in
oversight by intelligent, protective organizations who share my values. I
don't want to 'adapt' to a steadily deteriorating environment and
steadily
developing monoculture.

Bravo, at least you finally told me what you believe, instead of the
blame game.

Oh, no, don't get me wrong. There is plenty of blame to be had. I blame a
lot of scientists for living off the 'research fund titty', as we called it
during my 8 years as a research scientist. They have to research things that
there is funding for....which means that research is not as unbiased as it
should be. However, it doesn't mean research is worthless...just that it is
limited.

No problem so far!


I blame the current President for allowing clean air and clean water
standards to be compromised in the interest of more permissiveness for
corporations to make profits. Now, don't get me wrong....profits are good;
our capitalist system is based on profits. But we have to weigh things, and
find a healthy balance....compromising our water, air, and environment is
not really a good trade off in exchange for allowing companies to increase
their profits.

Now things are getting a little more sticky, how we weigh things seems
to be an issue, and how we find a healthy balance????

I blame the current majority for using unscrupulous methods to keep
themselves in power, like finger-pointing at Clinton (those cheeky rascals),
creating a false sense of danger from terrorist attacks in the US, and by
using sensitive issues like gay marriages to divide the country and rally
more support from the conservative right. I look forward to the day the CR
discovers that the current batch of policians are, well, politicians.

And Kerry was not a politician? I just prefer this politician to the
alternative. Kerry made all kinds of promises, but left me feeling
cold, doubting that they were nothing more than pie in the sky. At
least with Bush, I knew what I was getting, I believe he is a man of
his word, and that is the character MV part that was important to me.
He does what he says, and says what he does. Where is the lie in that?
We know going in that he is willing to promote his environmental
agenda, which is not as protective as some in the past. What is a
desirable agenda is a different matter, and probably not dependent on
who is in the Whitehouse.

And I especially blame a LOT of fundamental conseratives for pushing their
personal religious agenda on the rest of the country, and for deliberately
keeping themselves simple-minded 'like a child', ignoring issues that impact
all of us, even the rest of the world, and for creating a modern America
that is too self-serving, isolationist and self-righteous to be a
constructive or cooperative world partner.

Now I will tip my hand a little further, I am a Christian. Surprise!!!
but then that is a word that is probably more misunderstood than
Liberal, and a close second, Conservative fundementalist. I will try
to make some distinctions, realizing we all have our own filters.

Since we are talking about the USA, I will refraim from speaking about
Europe, or even Canada. I live in Colorado, so I should restrict
myself from even talking about the south, or the Northeast, or the
west coast. Matter of fact I can't even speak about the church up the
street that I pass everyday, and there is the rub. I can only speak
about myself, and my personal relation with God and religion. Whenever
I hear someone blaming, and pointing, and spouting about something or
someone else, especially when they lump the religious fundementalist
altogether. I get sort of defensive, if you haven't noticed.

As a Christian, I am not afraid or ashamed to share where I am at. I
do not feel that you should not talk about religion, or politics, in a
polite society. That part of arcane Victorianism should have gone away
a long time ago. Neither do I believe that I should shove my religion
down someones throat. I have a hard enough time figuring it out for
myself, than to expect anyone else to appreciate me forcing it on
them.

As a Christian, I should be a force for good in the world I live. One,
as light to see by, and to show what is good and bad. Two, as salt,
to preserve what is good, and to increase the savor of it. Three, a
soldier, to fight that which is bad. Now that is quite simplistic, and
obviously there are many shades in the spectrum of Christians.

As a Christian, I believe that God has a plan that includes me, and
where I am in the world. He uses me to fulfil his plan, and that there
are Christians everywhere. He calls us fishers of men, not that we are
fishermen, but we are the net, with which He fishes. And He has the
whole world in His net!

In the world, we are described as pilgrims, (for keenan if he reads
this, yes I have a thing for pilgrims) that this is not our home, we
are just passing through. Then we are also described as Ambassadors of
his Kingdom here in this world.

This all brings me to the connection with the current political
situation. You should not look at the fundementalist as a monolith.
There are as many kinds of fundementalist as there are fundementalist!
You could not destroy us by taking out 1, or a 100. There would be 200
to take their place. Sort of like the hammer toy that kids play with,
where when you hit one peg, two more come up. You are right on when
you say that is very frustrating, if you think you can get rid of us.

You can not immunize against us because we are all different, and we
reproduce very rapidly and virulently. In fact, each generation, gets
stronger as they respond to the hostile environment of the world. And
we are achieveing critical mass, which should be a scary thought to
any who oppose us.

Now combine all this into a political agenda, and it becomes powerful
in this political world in which we live. This critical mass is
currently aligned with the conservative agenda of the Republican, in
opposition to the Democrats and their Liberal agenda. The issues that
are currently hot: character, abortion and gay marriage. We believe
this is not a personal agenda so much as a mandate from God. You may
not like it, you may not agree, but I am just telling you how I feel a
lot of us believe, and you are left to deal with it.

A couple side note, we have not always been aligned with the
Republican, so they should be careful themselves, to not take us for
granted, or to take advantage of us. We have not always been in
agreement amongst ourselves as to where we should align. We have not
always been correct in our alignment, and hopefully adjusted our
alignment sooner than later. So we need to be checking with HQ on a
regular basis. But woe unto the party that ignores us.

We are not primarily activist, but as Ambassadors we observe, and
represent an option to the world system. We influence the world
indirectly, as we present the claims of Gods Kingdom on the lives of
men and nations. We also have to ultimately answer to God for our
actions and lives that we live.

As you can see, this is not a simple thing. We are in the world, but
not of the world. We are servants of God, but also called Ambassadors
of His Kingdom. I have not said anything about going to church etc.
because I do not want to make you feel that I am pushing religion down
your throat. In fact, this has little with going to church, and more
with going to God. I have been on the receiving end, and did not care
for the treatment. I know that others may not be as sensitive, I can
not speak for them, but I will apolgize for them if you have been
offended.

You may still ask what bearing does this have on dam building, roads,
and cutting old growth forest. We are also stewards of all that we
believe God made, which is everything. We are responsible to protect
and preserve all the good things that God has blessed us with. But as
stewards, we are also responsible for the responsible use of those
same thing. We are not just to put them in a showcase, but use them
for the good of all mankind. Gods main concern is not the forest, but
the house that shelters, and even the fire that burns to warm the
cold. God loves his creation, but most of all God loves man, and all
is here for the benefit of man, so that man would acknowledge God.

As I paddle along, I am so glad that God made water, and Kayaks, and
made me so that I enjoy them. I love clean water, and the mountains,
and the beautiful forest. I want to be able to enjoy them for a long
time to come. But I also am responsible to preserve them.

I am also responsible to preserve little unborn lives, babies, that
God Loves as he loves all men everywhere. Abortion is not an
acceptable alternative, when there are so many alternatives. There are
tragic situations in life, but none so tragic to justify taking a
babies life.

I am also responsible to maintain and preserve the social order that
God created in creation. Marriage between other, than a man, and a
woman, is a violation of that order. I realize that there are
different situations, and difficult situations, but God established
the order for the preservation of society. Those societies that have
chosen to violate that order, are doomed. There are many ways to
violate Gods social order, same sex marriage is just the current
issue.

A part of social order, is personal responsiblity. When President
Clinton lied to us about his involvement with Monica, all kinds of
warning sirens went off. I would even say that I believe it would be
hard to find anyone that would say it was Okay. We intrinsically know
it was not. The specifics of the BJ are troubling enough, but to have
a person in such an incredible position of trust and power, unable to
exercise personal discipline, made us all feel vulnerable. He weakend
not only himself, but the Democratic party as reflected in the last
two elections, but also the nation. We as Christians could not endorse
or sanctify his behavior, but instead have to speak out about it, for
the very sake of preserving society.

Now if the current Republican administration was able to tap into the
above agenda, I do not see that as being unscrupulous. The Democrats
would have done the same if they could have figured out how. It is the
political process. For them to continue to alert us to the possibility
of further terrorist attack, I hope the warning was bona fide, but
whether or not, the Dems would have done the same, if in the place to
do so. Politician manipulate to gain power. No real revelation here,
and we all know how the game is played!

Considering briefly the Liberal/ Conservative issue, they are just
different sides of the political coinage of our system. Yeah I
confess it has been fun using the L word on some of you, but only
because you are so sensitive, and I promise not to stop. It is very
effective way to work some up into a real lather. (Hi Keenan) The
fact that you are so bothered shows me that it has not lost its
meaning, and you know what it means, as you try to distance yourselves
from it. Especially now when the other side of the coin is so bright
and popular. There was a time when being conservative, was anathama.


And I have no idea what you mean by you last statement: "unless we
choose
to not adapt, and choose instead to live in our blue bubble of
unrealistic
liberalism." The term 'liberal' has been tossed around so much that it
has
lost almost all meaning. In your statement, I see that you have chosen
'sides' so thoroughly that you are saying things that don't even mean
anything any more.Are you saying that people who resist mindless
expansion,
unsupervised development and have a forward-looking attitude of
conservation
are 'liberals', and as such, are unable to adapt? That adapting to
deteriorating situations is preferable to having some sort of guiding
principles of protectionism? That good things are not worth keeping, and
people who want to keep good things are 'liberals' and as such, bad? It
is
pretty difficult to have an intelligent, open minded discussion with
someone
when they are so tangled with hyperbole and rhetoric that they don't even
make sense.

But you are having conversation with me now, so it can't be all that
bad.

Oh, trust me on this: I find conversing with you excruciating. You might be
an interesting paddling partner, but if we ever tried to develop a
friendship based on our political ideoligies, we would _not_ be friends.

None of this had to make sense, it just had to get under your skin. I
did not understand that we are working on a thesis or disertation,
that I had to, or wanted to present all kinds of data and info
supporting my position ad infinitum. Most of these issues are hashed
out somewhere else, by someone better prepared than this poor paddler.
I just like to hear the squealing, especially like when you get dumped
in the icy cold water, and you find yourselves all wet! As some of you
definitly are.


The blue bubble are those east and west coast states that went
blue. Liberal does have a meaning, and most have found they do not
want their program identified as such because they all know that it
means idealistic, unrealistic, and out of touch. Liberal also means
that the Federal Government is central in regulating the programs, and
in this case enviromental.

Bravo, at least you finally defined what you mean by 'liberal'. However, be
careful: 'idealistic', 'unrealistic' and 'out of touch' are entirely
relative terms. Idealism can agree on in part: it be easily qualified as
being a bit of a waste of time in a pragmatic (non-idealistic) society, and
can even be cast as a 'wishing for what you ain't got' type of mentality.
But 'unrealistic' is a bit harder to pidgeonhole, as is 'out of touch'.
Personally, I think your perspectives on human adaptation, the futility of
scientific research, preventative measures and the overall fundamentalist
perspective are VERY unrealistic and out of touch. Just because those who
propose to be supporters of that point of view won the election doesn't make
the issues dissappear. When you propose pulling garbage out of urban streams
as a valid alternative to preserving clean wilderness streams, I think you
are WAY out of touch. Reality sucks; I'm taking about PHYSICAL realities,
not POLITICAL or 'pseudo-spiritual' ones. Call me idealist or unrealistic,
but the alternative is just disgusting. I cannot fathom how the conservative
right gets off saying that the liberals are 'elite'....the eliteness of the
CFR is staggering!

When you win, you are in an elite crowd, you don't have to pretend!
That is reality also. That does not mean you are right, but it does
feel good. The reality of the environment, physical reality, has
always to deal with the political, and political with spiritual. You
tried to separate them, and that is probably part of the explanation
for the lost election. If you disassociate the issues, you will
present yourself to the voter as disassociated, and you will attract
disparate and unintegrated voters (the 2004 Democratic Party.) If on
the other hand, you can intergrate the issues, you will draw people to
together who are able and willing to integrate their voice (the 2004
Republican Party.)

Originally the conservationist were involve
in conserving our resources, and protecting our heritage, and then
along came the Liberals who federalized the projects as a financial
boon-doggle. The conservatives eventually distanced themselves, and
the programs became the sole realm of the Liberal.

Hmm, thats a pretty convenient theory, but its a lot of BS. Another way to
look at it is to say that we NEED to federalize certain projects to ensure
that they are enforced and protected. Leaving the protection of the
environment in the hands of local forces means that the people with the
money and local power....often the lumber yards, timber barons, factory
owners, and developers, for example....will be able to do what they want,
even if it harms the interests of the general population. Modern developers
are becoming expert at twisting meanings....clear-cutting and calling it
'Fire Prevention', dumping measured amouts of pollution and saying that they
are proving 'cleaner water' (because they aren't dumping MORE pollutants),
but it doens't change the realities. Federalizing conservation projects was
Teddy Roosevelt's idea of how to ensure that things were protected 'for the
common good'. Now, don't get me wrong. Timber companies can do whatever they
want on their OWN land, but one of the rich heritages of the US is the
common ownership of national forests and parks. Those, I want them to stay
the hell out of, and I need Federal clout to do it, but I'm not getting it
from THIS government. That's what is so disenfranchising. Personally, I
cannot understand why you want to give some private timber company all your
trees in YOUR national forest, and get pretty much _nothing_ in return.
Seems pretty foolish to me.

Now we are getting to the heart of the issue for you, and I have
little to disagree, if you could just stay here. Understand, I believe
that this President has very little to to with these issue, or for
that matter whomever is in the Whitehouse.

"ensure that things were protected 'for the common good'... In looking
over your previous statement, I think that this is where we get in
problem. Most of the other thing you say are illustrative of what you
think is for the good. I would not draw all the lines in the same
place as you, and I would not draw them in permant ink. I would like
to go into this more, but will save it for our next conversation.

Respectfully, Tinkerntom, aka KnesisKnosis, Life, Live it!