Cut and snip employed..

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

Why, hello again Tinkerntom. If your plan with this post was to lure me out
again, you have succeeded. Don't get too gloaty about it.

You don't research much, do you? That statement above shows that you are so
focused on your own agenda that you aren't even considering who you are
talking to. How long have you been a Denver locksmith, by the way?


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.

Hmmm, and any theories on why that may be? Or are you happy to just not be
interested?


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.

Tinkerntom, please don't fraternize me. Its impolite, and I'm far too old to
be spoken to like a child.


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.

We have geology in common, as a google search will show you, although I did
not go into Petroleum, unlike my roommate who is a major environmental
researcher at ColoState. And lay off the dramatics. You're new here, so
people don't know much about you, but in time people get to know each other.
Saying that you are 'tipping' is trying to say how much in control of these
conversations you are. Again, don't be fraternizing.


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.

Uh huh. So it sounds like you feel that all science is biased,
discreditable and laced with a personal agenda. Sounds like you are
conveniently rejecting anything that doesn't fit into your OWN personal
bias. Funny how that cuts both ways, eh? Next time you make use of anything
at all that scientific research has produced, say a little thank you prayer
that not everyone gets to cut off funding for anything they don't believe
in. Hell, it was attitudes like that that got Galileo in trouble. It might
very well be attitudes like that that get US in trouble.



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????

Hmm, maybe some scientific research? I'll play a game with you, Tom. You go
out and find all the research you can that supports, for example, that
Global Warming is not a real threat. And I'll go out and find all the
research that I can which says it IS. Then we compare all our data, and try
like hell to find biases and faults in each other's. We keep each other
accountable. Then we both go out and do some more investigating to prove or
disprove our claims. THAT is called 'scientific research'.

OR we can do it your way: we can declare that all this hullaballoo is really
a biased waste of time, that we don't want to listen to those silly
scientists because, since they can't agree, there really must not be a
problem. And the ones who DO agree should not be funded because we don't
agree with them. Besides, trying to reduce emissions (which isn't necessary
since there really ISN'T any pollution, and anyhow, trees cause much more
pollution than humans ever did) is just too inconvenient and puts too much
financial stress on businesses to ask them to clean up their own mess (which
isn't a mess since we don't want to believe it is), and anyway, the are more
than willing to just be careful themselves about how much they pollute.

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.

Well, you're right on that. You know what you are getting....you are getting
someone who does not accept responsibility for his own decisions ("It was
the Intelligence communities fault for giving me bad data! How was I to
know?"), who has NEVER run a successful business and is completely fiscally
unresponsible (turning a positive cashflow into a record deficit, three
years in a row!), who has singlehandedly destroyed the international
reputation and goodwill of the US, who prides himself in not reading, not
taking his constituents into account when he makes decisions, and who prides
himself in making FAST decisions, and not changing his mind even in the face
of new evidence.


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!!!

No joking?? Wow, what a stunner!

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.

Strange that you don't employ that same filter to Liberals. But I have to
admit, that hammer analogy has some real appeal....


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.

Ugh. You have described exactly what is wrong with your kind of
fundamentalism. You have to 'check in with HQ on a regular basis'. Assuming
that you all don't get exactly the same fax from God, that means you have to
be led, and told what is the 'alignment' by your church leaders. The very
essence of a free society is that people get to make their own decisions,
but instead a whole lot of religious fundamentalists are happy to be sheep,
told what the current belief is supposed to be. Now, spare me all the dogma
about 'search your heart' and 'being led by the Holy Spirit'....I hate all
that code-speak that religious folks use. I was gagging at the 'light, salt,
soldier, fish, Ambassadors' analogies. And, yes, I know that your preacher
will tell you how the minions of Satan hate that kind of talk, but guess
what, the US isn't your church. even more, there are constitional boundaries
set up specifically to protect us from folks like you. I'll even tip my hand
to you....I am pretty disgusted by religious fundamentalists, and I openly
reject their kind of prosteletyzing. And guess what else? There are a LOT of
US, too. And we are already fuming pretty bad about how you snaked your way
into this last election, and my guess is that, now that you have all shown
yourselves and your agenda, it won't last. You forget, all 51% of Bush's
votes werent from the moral majority.


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.

Ahh, here we go. Finally.

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.

So, you are 'protecting and preserving' these things by cutting them down
for the use of people. That's that doublespeak that is so disgusting. It
also implies two things that you, again, conveniently igno
a) you have an INCREASED RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that you are not polluting
the air, water, etc, since God wants you to protect it.
b) you have an INCREASED RESPONSIBILTY to ensure that the consumed resources
are, indeed, being used for the benefit of man. Somehow, lining some fatcats
pockets off the public lands doesn't seem like that was what God had in
mind, eh?


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.

So where does tossing out the Kyoto protocol come into that? And again, how
does ignoring conservationism, which has exactly the same responsibility,
come into it? You reject those Liberal Conservationists because they are
blocking you from developing that land that you are supposed to
preserve....or was it to be a good steward of so that you can make Wise Use
of it, and develop it for nice, warm houses? But what about your kids, and
their kids?? How can they make use of it if you cut it down and develop it?
And what about the pollution? Oh, this is all so confusing...


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.

GAG me!! This is such hyperbole!! Never an alternative? Preventing women
from having abortions when their own lives are in danger?? Forcing children
to be born into households that cannot afford to feed themselves??
Prohibiting abortions when it is known that the fetus will be severely
deformed, or even die soon after birth?? Just because it gets difficult to
make decisions about grey areas doesn't mean that we should avoid doing it.
And hiding behind God doesn't help, either.


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.

Un huh. Your opinion, as told to you by your preacher. I bet God would want
people to marry the person they love, rather than have them live outside the
sanctity of marriage. And if a loved one dies, I bet God would want the
loved partner to have legal rights. And what if that same couple decided to
adopt a child whose parents chose not to abort them? Would God implode?

Oh, and what about those of us who DON'T believe in God? Why should some
ficticious invisible friend of yours get to make rules about someone else's
life??

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.

Yeah, that's what we are so afraid of. If you would kindly present us with a
list of all the issues, in the order you plan on bringing them up, we might
be more able to assess your agenda.


A part of social order, is personal responsiblity.

Again, doesn't sound like it. Sounds like it is a religious responsibility
that YOU are forcing on the rest of us. That old doublespeak again.

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.

Hell, I'll say it was OK. To evade it, that is. It was none of the countries
damn business...it had nothing to do with running the US, and you are being
led blind if you see it, and your reaction to it, as anything but a
political manipulation by the right wing. They saw their opening, created an
issue, and tried to run with it. Clinton was exponerated, get over it.


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.

Not all of us. You *choose* to feel vulnerable. What were you so afraid of,
that in his 'lack of personal discipline' he would demonstrate the ability
to severely limit personal freedoms, make decisions based on bad evidence,
endanger the lives of American soliders in an unprovoked war, generate a
worldwide distrust and derision of the country, and drive the national debt
through the ceiling? Its strange how you overreact to someone who stuck a
cigar up a woman's vagina then declined to discuss it on national TV, but
turn a complete blind eye to someone who might very well be undermining the
US for years to come. Bush makes me feel *very* vulnerable! Not because of
what he might be capable of doing, but for what he HAS done and what he
promises to CONTINUE doing!!

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.

That's a bit melodramatic, don't you think? No one asked you to endorse or
sanctify his behavior. And putting Bush in office is not a solution to
whatever you feel about Clinton, because Clinton wasn't running for
president. That's like saying you voted for Eisenhower because Lincoln won
the war.


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!

This is completely nonsense, and the lowest form of defense. "Its right
because you would have done the same thing." For starters, you cannot
support that claim in any way. Secondly, that never excuses things. But at
least you are admitting that it could have all been a lie. But Conservatives
lying to get in power is somehow OK....funny that old doublespeak again.
How's the view from your moral high ground?


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.

I'm not distancing myself from it. I'M A LIBERAL, THROUGH AND THROUGH. I
believe in personal freedom, I believe that the government has the
responsibility to protect social interests from self-serving interests, and
I believe in fiscal accountability. I believe in protecting the environment,
I believe that public and private corporations and that the top 5% of
wealthholders in America have a social responsibilty to the bottom 95%, or
else they can try to get that rich in some other country. I believe that we
all should donate time and energy to preserving the environment, and that as
a nation as a whole, we have it FAR too good and that other nations have
their own soverign rights to choose their own governments and social
systems. I believe that other people are entitled to be just as misled by
their religions as our people are, and I believe that fundamentalists of all
flavors ought to have their asses kicked by a fat lesbian named Bruno.

I am just sick of hearing people destroy the multi-party system by using the
term derogatorily. Do some research on how that term got to be villified,
and you'll discover that you are just a puppet, being played by the
political strategists who make you think that you actually believe, or
understand, what you are saying. Its precisely the same strategy that make
the Japanese 'gooks', the Germans 'krauts', the Russians 'commies' and the
Chinese 'chinks'. Prejudice....very Christian of you. And why do you hate
America so much?

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.

Ah ha. Thank you for admitting that you are not right.

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.

No, I disagree wholeheartedly and with passion and concern. This president
has a tremendous responsibity to stop sitting on his hands and saying 'aww,
there ain't no problem' and 'if there IS a problem, the Dems caused it!" and
to be wise, a good steward, and DO something about it. Wisely. If he's too
stupid or stubborn to make decisions, he should employ a LOT of scientists
and let them advise him. But what he IS doing is making it worse. He has the
worse environmental record of the last 50 years, just when the research and
evidence is showing us that things are starting to get quite bad.


"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.

We'll see.
--riverman