Larry Cable wrote:
....stuff deleted
You have to provide me with specific legislation or rule changes, please. If
one looks at Clear Skys legislation, the biggest complaint is that it isn't
tough enough, although its a lot tougher than what hadn't been PASSED in
Congress or implemented by the previous administration. Last year had the
lowest levels of Ozone in decades, partly because of a wet year, partly because
of controls that have been in effect for years.
A simple google search produced the following:
http://environment.about.com/library...clearskies.htm
Since the tables will not reproduce correctly in this forum, I won't
post the numbers.
If this were the only legislation, it wouldn't be so bad. If you read
Molly Ivins' book, "Bushwhacked," you can extract more information on
his appalling environmental impact. By the way, since most of this
legislation was done under the table, so to speak, much of it was
unreported.
Additional examples are found he
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG9H94VEF1.DTL
He does not "preach access to public land," he
preaches exploitation and destruction of it.
Do you believe that we should make all Public Land a National Park? I firmly
believe that we should be allowed to exploit resources on public land in a
reasonable manner. If one looks at many of the Western States like Wyoming, the
....stuff deleted
I have no problems with sustainable use of public lands. This is not
what Bush proposes (it costs too much to replant and restore, so he
proposes that this is optional to companies). Surprisingly, this is how
it was for most of the 400 years the country has existed and we all know
how well this worked.
Also from the previously mentioned cite:
"Forests
Bush: Won congressional support for an initiative opening 20 million
acres of national forests to logging, saying it would promote forest
health and resistance to catastrophic wild fires. Repealed the
Clinton-era "roadless rule," which banned road-building in nearly
one-third of the nation's forests; under the Bush proposal, governors
may petition the federal government to retain protections on national
forests in their states."
....stuff deleted
Now I agree that some of the legislation on Homeland Security is a little
scary, but the worst elements of it were actually already in place in the "War
on Drugs", like that little know Material Witness thing. Nobody seemed to care
back then.
I would point out that Historically the US and most countries have reacted a
lot worse in times of national crisis like 9/11.
I believe that we put the Japanese in concentration camps, suspended habeas
corpus during the Civil and WWI, and generally violated a lot of peoples civil
rights back then.
SYOTR
Larry C.
Larry, I won't argue that we have acted racially and illegally in the
past. This does not give us the right to do so in a time when the US is
NOT even at war with the "country" (if you can say that about this
situation) which has motivated us to implement these first steps toward
marshal law. The unlawful detaining of foreign nationals, without
charge, without proof of their involvement in any plot against the US,
for over a year is either a fine example of racial profiling and a
violation of our constitution, or a fine example of a country that is
"comfortable with their prejudices" (to coin Rosalyn Carter). Either
way, this type of behavior is unprecedented. Note also that all of the
reasons that Bush cited for going to war were proven, later, to be
bald-faced lies to congress, making the case (and process) for going to
war illegal. Not, personally, that I had any problem with ousting
Hussain (and would have been more supportive, grudgingly, had that
reason been given). My problem is that the processes have been
subverted. This, along with the clauses that seem to keep popping up in
the name of "homeland security" (nice Nazi ring to that, by the way),
lead me to the belief that we are closer, than ever before, to being a
second Weimar republic.
Rick