"rick etter" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
.. .

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 15-Nov-2004, Brian Nystrom wrote:

You can dump on Keenan all you want, but dumping on Canada needs proof.
:-)

Mike

I AM CANADIAN!
====================
We know. Stupidity, like hot air seems to be rising....


Thanks Rick, I needed that! TnT

Wilko

Typed in Message-ID:

And euthanasia, pornography, prostitution, soft drugs use etc. etc..

Let's make people criminals for doing something that others don't want
and therefore want to forbid everyone else from doing.

I think you will find that these are illegal to some extent in most Western
countries outside of Holland. While I'm fully in favor of legalizing
"victimless" crimes (most of these are not really, but a different discussion),
these laws are pretty common in most Western countries.

BTW, pornography is pretty available thoughout most of the US. Despite the
rhetoric, there is little censorship, although restrictions on were it can be
shown are common. Political censorship in the US is rare. One can find just
about any opinion in the world published or broadcast somewhere in the US.

Not to mention the unequal rights for women as promoted by the religious
right: women belong at home, taking care of the children. Geez!

My wife belongs for one of those "evangelical religions". Yet many, if not most
of the women in her church work outside of the home, many with good careers.
While I'm in the camp that believes that mindless superstition and senseless
rituals are all that really distinguishes from the animals, I can find
no suppression of womens rights in the vast majority of Fundamentalist
churches,
excluding abortion.

Yeah, already there is not much left to protect the minority from the
tyranny of the majority, except a lot of money to afford expensive
lawyers who know how to talk a bent stick straight, let alone to protect
the maority from an extreme right wing minority who have the
government's ear. Democracy my ass.

"the right wing" is overblown. No matter how he is protrayed in the press, old
George is Middle of the Road. He is more conservative socially than Clinton,
but politically there isn't much difference. The only difference even foreign
policy wise is that Clinton was an Internationalist and George doesn't always
care if the European community cares about what he does.

Going to work now
SYOTR
Larry C.

Keenan wrote:
Do you think so? It's hard to say. The media censorship is unbelievable. You
would hardly know any Americans have been killed!

Ah, maybe I have stumbled upon the problem, "media Censorship." Now I
haven't heard of such down here,(certainly there are many voices
reminding us of how many have been killed and wounded) so you must be
speaking of up there in Canada. That is unbelievable for sure, I
thought those Canadians were a little tolerant of diverse viewpoints,
but then that would also esplain the rampant Liberalism that plagues
our dear neighbor to the north. Isolated, uninformed, intolerant,
Liberals, - yeah, that explains it!


War is a terrible thing, noone likes it! So lay down their weapons of
destruction, and learn to live in peace.

Who are we talking about?

I was speaking of the criminal mobs that are bombing their own, in the
name of Allah. Who are you talking about? Probably the US troops, who
are risking their lives, to set the people free from the tyranny of
war lords. Who have had their way for centuries of warfare that have
been going on there. The current US troops just happen to be in their
way at this time, fighting to win and guarantee the peace for all.

Concentration Camp in Cuba? Yes I read about the 40 some musicians who
sought refuge in this country, just yesterday. Must be a terrible
place to have to live, I mean in this country.

I will admit that my collective conscious feels uneasy about the
detainees in the camp in Guantanamo Bay. However they are a far cry
from Dachow

Ah, well, that's OK then!

I am glad that you agree that it is Ok, at least we agree on this!

Thanks, Tinkerntom, aka Knesisknosis, Life, Live it!

"Keenan Wellar" ) writes:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message

Constitution is talking about. The Constitution says that we are all
born equal

Then the Constitution is wrong. You might want to fix it. I think you fixed
up some other parts that were wrong. Like the value of a black person? That
sort of thing.

I'd like to jump in here to address a popular misonception. The Bible says
"all men are created equal in the eyes of God". It just means that every
person is born with what some religuous beliefs call a soul and can get
into Heaven. It has nothing to do with genetics, social status, or
government legislation and enforcement. It's like another Amercian myth
that any boy can grow up to be President. I had the advantage of living in
the USA for a few years, graduating from an Amercian high scool. There is
quite a difference in what people are taught in Canadian and American
schools and in their outlook and opinions as adults. The attitude of
superiority taught in Amercian schools is much more like what is taught in
England than what is taught in Canada. It's not unexpected as anyone who
lucks into power and weath usually comes to think they are smarter or
better educated or something, supported by compliments by others. Because
we have so many abundant natural resources in Canada we live well in spite
of the enourmous mistakes made by business and government, not because of
their wisdom and ability which si no better than elsewhere, and because of
the abundance of resources, tends to be more wasteful than elsewhere.

On the subject of preserving wilderness, in Canada we have more of it but
we are not doing any better than the Amercians in protecting or restoring
it, especially waterways in and around settled areas. We only get
interested in it when we think it will attract American tourist dollars to
areas of low employment. That happens after the mine has closed or the
profitable trees have been cut. It's a kind of natural progression, like
moving west.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network
homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm
warning: non-FreeNet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned

William R. Watt ) writes:

....We only get
interested in it when we think it will attract American tourist dollars to
areas of low employment. That happens after the mine has closed or the
profitable trees have been cut.

so sorry, I forgot the fish. My sincere appologies to the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador which has been spending so much money it doesn't
have on TV ads in the United States, and to all of you Amercian kayak
paddlers who have left the pollution of your own waterways to come to
Newfoundland and Labrador with your Amercian tourist dollars to paddle the
scenic fished out rocky coasts. God bless you every one.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network
homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm
warning: non-FreeNet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
...
"riverman" wrote in message
...
"Keenan Wellar" wrote in
message
news:BDBEFAF0.11A56%
As long as Bush can keep 50%+ of Americans in a perpetual state of fear
and
violence and effectively pander to hatred, I don't think the Dems have
a
chance.

I choose to include Keenans complete paragraph, which you conviently
edited!

Keenan wrote:

"As long as Bush can keep 50%+ of Americans in a perpetual state of
fear and
violence and effectively pander to hatred, I don't think the Dems have
a
chance. However, I would agree that their campaign was terrible, it
all
started with Kerry's bizarre and useless speech at the convention."

Unfortunately, despite the fear that Bush has generated, I think the Dems
don't stand a chance for awhile anyway. Tinkertom's posts are an
excellent
example of why:

The why, is not my reveling, which is a result of their loss. The why
they lost is pointed out by Keenan, "their campaign was terrible, it
all
started with Kerry's bizarre and useless speech at the convention."
Now if Bush, can keep 50%+ of Americans in fear... then I would think
the enlightened Liberals could easily calm and pacify their fears. It
seems though, all the Dems did was succede in milling about like a
bunch of sheep without a shepherd.

he clearly is reveling (as are many of the now-identifiable
Conservative Fundamentalist Republicans...CFRs) in the newfound divisions
in
our society. Its what I call (from my college days) "Frat Boy mentality".
A
group of people get the wind in their sails, and no matter how ridiculous
and arcane their group mentality is, it gets momentum and steamrolls
everything else out of the way until the momentum finally dies out from
within. Its like a bunch of drunk frat boys at a party, thinking they are
going to save the world.

I'm glad to see that you like my CFR. I figured that it would play
nicely in some conspiracy theory! Have fun, and be distracted!

Some of Tinkertom's generalizations are all too loudly supported by the
new
political majority in the US;

riverman, I think you are getting it. Finally! There is a new show in
town!

But then you had to write the following, and ruined it all..


Tinkerntom: I just spent the better part of the last hour reading and
rereading all your posts here, and I am completely undecided about how
sincere you are. You are either an astounding simpleton, completely unaware
of the contradictions and doublespeak you are endorsing, or else you are a
fairly crafty troll, or else you have found an obvious tender topic and are
just probing it for malicious fun. I can find evidence for all of these, but
I cannot find any evidence that you are a thinking person, making your own
judgements about world or domestic affairs based on your own observations or
reflections. You seem to be parroting every possible point-of-view that has
been offered you by the spinmasters in DC, or in your local church (although
less of the latter). In any case, I think any discussion with you is pretty
futile, as you have pretty clearly stated that anything which you don't
really understand falls in the realm of 'Liberal elite intellectualism'.
That rules out any possiblity of bringing up anything at all that doesn't
already fit into your mindset.

Enjoy your trolling, and the best part is that the emotions and concern you
generate by your vocalizations might be enough to get even MORE people who
oppose the CRF agenda to get involved in 2 years. Just try not to trash the
house too badly while your party is renting it out....others might want to
make some use of it once we get the current residents evicted.

--riverman

Well Keenan, I'll try again to clarify a few of these issues.

You continue to mention the puritans, and I got to thinking that you
being in Canada have a different view of them than we down here in the
Colonies. They were the religious fanatics of the day, that incited
the riot we call the fight for independence. Of course to us they are
just a bunch of nice folks who wear funny hats, and eat turkey.

This would also suggest why you have a problem with the Constitution,
and think it got things wrong, and should be redone. You are still
licking your wounds over that little fracus back in 1776. Sorry you
lost that one too!

Also abortion. And censorsihp.

Abortion has been discussed before, but censorship is new. Who got
censored?

As it happens, I am not gay, but hatred against gay people is not
"hypothetical" for me any more than racism against black people or unequal
pay for women is "hypothetical."

What happens to you in US politics is all Hypothetical to you. It is
not to those of us who live here.

Isn't choice great! The Puritans came here inorder to exercise free
choice, and in so doing, chose to live in a land where others chose
differently. However it is also a democratic land where the majority
rules, and the minority is protected from the tyranny of the majority,
by the courts.

Much to the chagrin of George and friends who are furious that the courts
occasionally strike down some of their puritanical efforts. But a few
changes to the courts, and whammo, the powers of hate will have the
congress, the senate, the presidency, and the courts!

I'm glad that you saw what I said about the courts. They have proven
through the years to be a moderating factor in US politics. So the
Constitution does work, and there is hope for the Dems, and the
forest! and you!

The Majority is currently identified as the moral
mojority, and so is opposed to the immoral minority. I am not saying
that this is true or right, just that it is reality.

Whatever that means.

Think about it, maybe you will eventually get it.

The minority, now has the choice, of dealing with it, or slinking
away. I admire you that you are not slinking! That things are
difficult for you, no doubt! We were there for a long time, and only
recently have rallied the troops to take significant ground. Now is
not the time for us to get lazy either. We will keep pressing on, and
you can choose to get onboard or not. That is your choice!

Um. Half of your own country is not on board, and just about all of the rest
of the world is not on board. And you are not going to convince me to hate
people just because a lot of you have gotten your **** together with the
hatred of others as your focus.

All your counts don't count in US politics. The only poll that counts
is the one on Nov 2, and is only valid for four years!

Our choice is that we do not want to have Gay Marriages blighting the
landscape

What is your problem with gay marriages?

Asked and Answered, you still don't get it!

nor wanton abortion polluting our collective conscious.

again Asked and Answered!

But you are OK with young girls in the alley with coat hangers, right?

Of course not, but what a false dilemna. Before Roe v. Wade, there
were probably some coat hanger abortions. But not nearly the number of
abortions that go on today. Ironically, I heard that the majority of
babies aborted would probably have been raised in a Liberal home, and
would have swollen your voting ranks now by 20 million. The Dems could
have used those votes, and would have defeated Bush. You have cut
yourself off at the knees.

Will you find a way to deny rich people access to abortions too, or is this
another in your list of policies designed to advance hate against the less
fortunate.

The rich have money to go where they want, to do what ever they want.
They aren't going to planned parenthood clinics for an abortion.
However, we do not choose to have the bill footed by Uncle Sam either.
If the less fortunate can't afford an abortion, let them figure out
how to keep from getting pregnant. You know it still is a mystery.

Regarding blacks feeling intimidated at the polling place, I feel that
is generally a bogus charge.

Blacks feel intimidated at all sorts of places in America, the polling booth
certainly being one of the places where said intimidation is at its best.

There may be places this occurs, it is a
big country, but I am sure we would have heard more, if it was
rampant.

From who? Fox News!?!?

But it sure sounds politically powerful. And there is the
core of the problem for Liberals. They keep trying to find some magic
bullet to propel themselves into power, without really having a viable
platform. Now that would be really hijacking the election, if they
could have pulled it off, like feeding bogus exit polls to their
sheep, which made them feel real good for awhile, but the let down was
a real bummer. Of course if you can blame it on some "old white
dudes," hey, what a coup. Keep on believeing this BS, if it makes you
feel better.

No idea what you are talking about there,

Again Clueless!

but you do realize that the
election was a rather close one, and that it is going to be difficult to
keep people in a state of perpetual fear, or even another four years? Even
Americans will get bored with the so-called "war on terror."

Mm. Only y'all ain't born with equality of opportunity. But I spose
that's
just some crackpot liberal thinkin' there eh?

For a change, I think you got it right, sort of! We obviously are not
born with equal opportunity

Praise geezus.

but then that is not what the
Constitution is talking about. The Constitution says that we are all
born equal

Then the Constitution is wrong. You might want to fix it. I think you fixed
up some other parts that were wrong. Like the value of a black person? That
sort of thing.

and that there are certain inalienable rights. Health
care, or driving a Rolls, and living in Aspen, is not one of them.

What about the right to put all your money offshore and not pay even as much
tax as the poorest person?

live in Colorado, but not Aspen. I drive a hardly rolls, and I have to
pay for my own health insurance. I have a black neighbor who has a
newer car, - a management job, that I expect provides insurance, and
both of us could go up to ski in Aspen. Ain't America great,
independent of our skin color, we can go any place we choose. The
only thing that really holds us back, is our own vision of who we are
and where we want to be!

Too put it bluntly, that's an idiotic oversimplification. Your kids, or the
kids born to your neighbour, are not going to have the same barriers to
success as some kid growing up in a **** poor neighbourhood where the police
are afraid to go and the school is a war zone. It's easy to have a nice
vision when you are starting from the top of the mountain.

I am hardly at the top of the mountain, but as I understand it, anyone
who really wants to can climb the mountain. That is what made the US
unique! and people come still everyday, and are willing to do whatever
it takes to stay.

Luckily most voters realized that the above program is unacceptable,
if for no other reason, than who was going to pay for it? The promise
was that taxes would be raised on the rich. That works until there are
no more rich, and then they come after you and me, or at least me! No
thankyou!

LOL. Again, y'all were sayin' somethin' 'bout settin' up a false dilemma?

It is not a false dilemna, kerry said, he was going to raise the taxes
on the rich. Now you said earlier, that the rich don't pay taxes,
because they put them off shore. As if raising the amount due will
encourage them to bring their investments back on shore. That would
mean, Kerry would not be able to raise the promised taxes to support
the promised programs, so they would fail, unless he raise taxes on
me. I don't have off shore investments. The best I could hope for is
that Uncle Sam would take money from one of my pockets, and put it
back in another. This of course after he took his cut. Then all these
programs would fire up inflation, which is nothing more than a hidden
tax as my dollar buys less.


Now I am sure you will probably say Huh! so maybe we will talk more
about that later.


I am self-employed, which means I get to pay all my own taxes, and I
know how much I pay. I have paid a lot for a long time, and I am not
rich. I would not mind being rich, mind you, then I could maybe afford
to take a vacation or move up to Canada. But then I would spoil it for
you, and that luckily for you, is not a false dilemna.



You should come up here. See if you can pick out the gay married people from
the gay unmarried people the straight unmarried people and the straight
married people.

I never claimed that I could pick out gays from staight, married or
unmarried.
Unless I see two or more of them convorting together, and then there
is no doubt that all could ID them! So what is the point? This line of
reason does not make me want to have gay marriages in my community. If
gays want to live together, that is up to them, but we do not have to
sanction them as a married couple.

Similiarly, enviro issues are presented in the same way. If we sneak
it under the radar, make enough distracting noise, noone will realize
the finacial costs of these programs. The problem, is that we have
fallen for this before, and noone was buying it this time. Especially
considering that for the last 30 or 40 years Nader and his crowd, have
been singing the same song, but tell us the problems remain. That is
why he was ignored this time more than ever before. The fact that
Kerry, gave lipservice, to pacify the eco-warriors, only proves that
they are easily distracted!

Uh. Whatever all that means. The environment IS the economy. It just
ain't
rightly recognized as such by certain folk.

Clueless in Canada, the fact that you don't get what that means, only
shows how much out of contact you are with the issues that are
important to the majority of US voters. The environment is "not" the
economy, it is only a part of the economy. In a previous election, we
were told that "It is the economy, Stupid!" The Dems are still singing
the same song, but the band has moved on! The economy is always
important, it is just what the money is going to be spent on, and how,
that changes.

I have no idea what that is all supposed to mean, and I don't think you do
either. It sounds like one of George W's speeches. You know, the ones where
the sheep in the audience look all confused until they get the signal to
clap at the end?

OK, well, back to regular programming.

And that is a big part of the problem, is that liberals have fallen
back on their regular programming that worked for them in the 70's,
failing to update their prime time offerings. Any TV station that did
that would not last from one season to the next, how is it that the
Dems think they can go for decades without changing, their song and
dance!

Thanks for the Dance, Tinkerntom, aka Knesisknosis, Life, Live it!

Brian Nystrom scribbled:

Keenan Wellar wrote:

[snip]


There's a big difference between civil rights and the socialist agenda
being pushed by the left.


Socialist my ass. The Democrats?!?!? Geezus man, they are so far from
socialist it ain't funny. Unlike Republicans who want more guns and more
jesus as the answer to every problem, the Democrats seem willing to actually
consider that there might be other answers. But socialists? I can't see how
people can think that applies.

Then you're blind. Democrats are the party of BIG government, BIG social
programs, BIG entitlements and "cradle to grave" government care. Give
them all your money and your freedoms and they'll take care of you for
life. That's about as socialist as one can get.

Actually, this is not remotely true. New Yorkers receive an average
return (in services) of $0.68 on every dollar paid in Federal taxes.
Los Angelinos receive $0.73 (and that return includes benefits accrued
to every company that evades taxes and takes advantage of "loophole"
subsidies). Residents of "red" states (actually, the "red" *counties*
of the "red" states) receive an average of $1.70 in various farm
subsidies, water subsidies, grazing rights, jobs in mine-giveaway and
forest-products-giveaway businesses, Federal
infrastructure-building...

The Republicans consistantly harp on "reducing Big Gubmint" as a
campaign theme. During the Bush administration the size of the
Federal Gubmint has grown; during the Clinton administration it
shrank. Go figger.

The Republicans will never cut the programs that provide jobs or lower
commodity and services costs for the heartland "conservatives". They
would prefer to (hypocritically) subsidize a farm family that votes
*against* Big Gubmint than to provide food and heating oil for the
children of a single mom (so what if Mom is a dirtbag; I'm talking
about her children here -- but Christians don't understand such fine
distinctions) in a big city. Personally, I don't mind subsidizing the
heartland counties, but then, I'm a "big gubmint" liberal, and
compassionate enough to want to care for my fellow Americans in the
depressed areas, even if they are stupid, uneducated, and hypocritical
enough to vote *against* the very Big Gubmint that sustains them.

There is not an economist in the country who will tell you (with a
straight face) that the Republicans are fiscally conservative (that's
why I am no longer a Republican.) They will maintain the programs
that sustain the rednecks, to keep their voting base, and they will
maintain the anti-free-market policies that sustain the corporations,
to keep their financial base. What the Republicans ARE is SOCIALLY
conservative, and that is like ****ing in the wind; society will
change whether they want it to or not. People will use dope whether
it is legal or not. Homos will screw homos whether the good
Christians like it or not. And women will get abortions, whether they
are legal or not. The only way they can keep society from changing
socially is to institute police-state tactics (where is John Ashcroft
when we need him?) and to keep NeoCons in power by keeping the
Terrorist Alert level up there around Orange to keep people
frightened, whether there is any proximate cause or not.

As for health care, it's long past time that people realize that health
care is not a "right", never has been one and shouldn't be one. Despite
the flaws in our system, we still have the best health care in the
world, as evidenced by the number of people who still flock here from
other countries.

How the hell is that evidence that it's the best health care?

If it wasn't, why would people come here specifically for it? I wouldn't
go to Mexico for health care, but they come here. The same is true with
people from around the world.

If you want to see what a disaster socialized medicine
would be, all you have to do is look to the north.

Um, er... Canada has greater mean longevity than the US, and lower
infant mortality; the two best indicators of health-care quality.
Hardly a "disaster", and it cost considerably less per capita than
American health care. Jeez, what kindergarten did you flunk out of?

And while yer raving about how "liberal" the Democrats are, just
remember that Richard Nixon favored a national health care system.
Our country has just gotten more stupidly right-wing since then.

How much further north can I go? I'm in Canada. My health care is excellent.

I'm glad you think so, but that doesn't seem to be a particularly widely
held opinion.

BTW, if you're from Canada, why the Hell you you even care about our
politics?

Nonsense! While it's definitely true that most Americans consume/waste too
much, recycle too little and don't put environmental concerns above issues
like values, security and economics, there is still enough concern to
prevent an environmental catastrophy. You watch, once the economy recovers
fully, there will be a push toward stronger environmental policies. In
some ways it's sad, but environmentalism only comes to the forefront when
we can afford it.

That perspective is sad indeed.

What can I say, that's the reality of the situation. No one in
Washington - regardless of their political affiliation - is going to
sacrifice the economy for the environment.

That's because the politicians -- and 50% of the voting public -- are
morons. "The environment" is where we live. Every householder spends
good money for a vacuum cleaner and for cleaning fluids and supplies.
We all go to the expense of building a garage or to the inconvenience
of working outside so that we won't wreck the livingroom repairing our
boats, motorcycles, or whatever. Spending money to live in a clean
house is standard; how can you dum****s not see that spending money to
live in a clean country is equally important?

Thats't the perspective that is said. To see the economy and environment as
separate things. That's why we're so screwed.

They're not separate, which is the problem. They're tightly
interrelated, so one affects the other. If they were separate, one could
act on both without adversely affecting either. You've got it backwards.

That's one reason that Ralph
Nader or the Green Party will never become a substantial force in
American politics; their radical agenda would devastate the economy,
assuming they could get any of it through Congress.

The Green Party in Canada is actually quite fiscally conservative.

Good for them, but that's not really the issue down here. The problem
wit the Greens here is that they are vehemently anti-business and don't
seem to understand that you CAN have "environmentalism without fanaticism".

Not too
sure what you've got going on down south, since the US media doesn't seem
too interested in talking about anyone but the Rs and Ds.

You don't seem to be too informed about anything going on down here.

Well, really; I *do* live here, and I am totally amazed and apalled at
the phenomenal stupidity of the American public. No wonder someone
who lives outside our borders cannot understand what's going on here.
The President keeps talking about improving education (you remember --
the underfunded No Child Left Behind program?) In fact, in the second
debate, he answered four different questions (none of which were on
the topic of education) with a rant about how we need to improve
education. Notice, he kept saying "we need to improve education"; he
never said he was actually going to try to do it! After all, an
educated public is the last thing you would want if you are the head
of a deceitful Administration that relies on a public that will not
research the truth, can not see through yer lies, and does not know
how to apply a critical analysis to yer idiotic pronouncements.


-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
--
================================================== ====================
Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA
rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net
Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu
OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters
================================================== ====================

"riverman" wrote in message ...
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
...
I absolutely cannot believe that THIS got fanned in this newsgroup, of
ALL
places!!

Kindly explain what you meant by 'there was nothing before'..??

--riverman

Hi there riverman, and all,

Obviously there was something there before, but not a reservoir! I am
in Colorado, where there is lots of WW, which is fine if you are into
WW. But even the WW would and still does disappear, as the rivers run
low at the end of the season. In the early season, floods were common.
So the Corp of Eng. built reservoirs for flood control, and Denver
Water Board, built water diversion projects. Farmers built Highline
canal, to bring in irrigation water. Now WW paddlers build play parks,
we boat and fish on the reservoirs, and dayhikers walk along the canal
and enjoy the great outdoors.

Is it a virgin wildplace experience? NO! Is it enjoyable and
refreshing? Yes!!

I believe that many of us paddlers would say we were born a hundred
years too late! or maybe even more. You are right on wanting to enjoy
the wild places. And that there are fewer and fewer. The problem I
feel is when you attribute their loss to GW, and that is where you got
cross wise with a bunch of us. Like a smoldering campfire the hot
coals where already there. All you had to do was add a little fuel,
and fan a little, or as the case may be, blow a lot of hot air! Don't
be surprised if the fire builds up all of a sudden, and scorches your
whiskers.

To those who would question my reference to PBS tv programs, I did not
cite them as factual documentation of what is going on in our
environment. But as examples of the lack of agreement even among
enviro types, of what is going on, how long it has been going on, the
source of the problem, and the net result. Maybe the atmosphere is
warming, and the ice is melting, and we may wake up some day to a
different world, but we will wake up, and adapt. Unless we choose to
not adapt, and choose instead to live in our blue bubble of
unrealistic liberalism.

In the meantime, keep on paddling, ur... maybe I should say go skiing,
on all that manmade early season snow.


Tinkerntom: I'm not sure where to start. You have a few valid points you
bring up, but there is a lot of hyperbole and jingoism in your post as well,
which makes it hard to discuss _real_ issues.

Some of your valid points about rivers drying up and runoff causing floods
are well taken, but you counter that with the standard Bureau of Reclamation
line about flood control, recreational areas and irrigation. The benefits
and shortcomings of dam projects has been well-discussed for about 20 years,
with the end result being a complete reversal of position by the BuRec to
where they have disbanded their dam building department. The environmental,
social and ecological impacts are turning out to be much more complex than
the simple 'rivers cause floods' model, and as a result, opposing parties
have long ago agreed to work much more closely to evaluate the benefits and
deficits of dams. Reading your post makes me think that I am discussing this
with someone who has the level of understanding of this that went away in
the 70s.

It may have gone away in the 70's but the projects from then still
exist, and is where I spend most of my paddle time. That certain BLM
types can't put their heads together, and make a wooden sidewalk,
doesn't change what has been done. Nor does it change what should be
done in the future.

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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

Yes, scientists disagree. That's the essence of science. They disagree, then
that spurs them on to discover more and more about what they are disagreeing
about to clarify their Understanding. That is much different than saying
'because they disagree, then they have no validity.' Its the quality and
intelligence of the discussion, the evidence that is produced during those
disagreements that is the hallmark of scientific discourse. Being threatened
by the fact that intelligent and inquisitive people are investigating
something and arguing openly about their findings is another indication that
you seem to be coming from a referential framework that is very well
outdated....like from the Dark Ages or something. A society without
disagreement sounds far too dictatorial to me. I cherish the disagreement,
you should too. As long as it is mindful, based in fact and research, and
with testable hyptotheses.

I definitely cherish the disagreement, and would cherish any fireside
chat where we could discuss our disagreements. Blaming not necessary.
otherwise I would not have spent the time that I have on this thread.

Yeah, things happened during Clinton's tenure. Also during Bush, Sr.s,
Reagans, Carter, etc. But the hallmark of THIS Presidency is that there is
less an attitude of preserving biodiversity and wilderness, and more of an
attitude of opening up wilderness areas for development under the guide of
'Wise Use', to allow development of lands and resources put aside with
preservation in mind by relaxing prohibitions. To allow degradion of air and
water resources in favor of immediate profit, to encourage practices that
might well be accelerating global issues like Global Warming. And when you
take a pristine, or seldom-used undeveloped area and put in oil rigs, roads,
logging trucks and relax accountability for 'management' practices, you are
taking that resource through a doorway that only goes one way. You can't get
your virginity back, you can't get your reputation back, and when you
develop pristine areas, you can't get that pristineness back.

Being able to adapt to that kind of change is not a sign of sucess. You want
scorched whiskers? Just keep on ignoring environmental impacts.

I had a thrill the other day, I was walking down the side of a
property, and saw one lonely flower, that had been found by a
butterfly. I watched it for a good 5 min. then it flew away over the
rooftop. My whiskers felt a whole lot better!

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

Caution: snip and reply involved...

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
m...
"riverman" wrote in message
...

Some of your valid points about rivers drying up and runoff causing
floods
are well taken, but you counter that with the standard Bureau of
Reclamation
line about flood control, recreational areas and irrigation. The benefits
and shortcomings of dam projects has been well-discussed for about 20
years,
with the end result being a complete reversal of position by the BuRec to
where they have disbanded their dam building department. The
environmental,
social and ecological impacts are turning out to be much more complex
than
the simple 'rivers cause floods' model, and as a result, opposing parties
have long ago agreed to work much more closely to evaluate the benefits
and
deficits of dams. Reading your post makes me think that I am discussing
this
with someone who has the level of understanding of this that went away in
the 70s.

It may have gone away in the 70's but the projects from then still
exist, and is where I spend most of my paddle time. That certain BLM
types can't put their heads together, and make a wooden sidewalk,
doesn't change what has been done. Nor does it change what should be
done in the future.

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.



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....

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.

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.

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 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.


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.

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!

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.


I had a thrill the other day, I was walking down the side of a
property, and saw one lonely flower, that had been found by a
butterfly. I watched it for a good 5 min. then it flew away over the
rooftop. My whiskers felt a whole lot better!

Well, that's cute.

--riveramn