"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
m...
Rick and Keenan
You do realize that the Onion is a satirical paper produced in
Berkeley,
Ca. (and has been since, , do you not? If not, I suggest that you
reread
the articles with that in mind. Look at the front page and you may
notice Kerry arresting Bin Laden, and the "Nations' Wildlife Fleeing to
Canada."

Rick

That last one could be true!

Again, I take issue with you and your ilk, the question is not whether
I understand that the above is satire, but whether you do? It seems to
me that many of the Liberals have been drinking their own bilge for so
long, that they fail to realize their ship finally sank!

Please understand, I do not hold any ill will to you. In fact I would
encourage you to take a drink of fresh clean water, for inspiration
and information. Who knows, after the next four years, we made need
all the fresh insight you have to offer!

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

Have you checked the water you are drinking?

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
m...
Keenan

no one in Washington - regardless of their political affiliation -
is going to sacrifice the economy for the environment.

strange how there is always enough money for war
but not for the environment.
If only there was a war against pollution...
And those who are not with us, are?

Hey, that's really good!

Just like declaring "war on terror" gives Bush license to wage war
wherever
and however he wants, declear "war against pollution" and behave
accordingly...


It should not surprise any of us that politicians always find money to
spend on their pet projects. I just prefer this President's pets, than
the alternative offering!

I did work for the EPA, and the waste, and lack of significant goals,
would not be exceeded by the Clinton war on terrorism, and blowing up
tents with million dollar Cruise Missles. But then that was a good
cover for Monica!

Kerry had his opportunity to declare war on pollution, but chose not
to, because he knew that it would not fly. The trial balloon was made
of lead! Now is the time for you to start designing a new balloon. You
can plan a test flight in 4 years. Hopefully you can present us with a
viable alternative, and not just another Clinton!

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

Interesting. This ties in with American Puritanism, actually.

One President lies about whether or not he got a blow job, and he is almost
impeached.

One President lies to start a war killing thousands of people, and he gets
re-elected!

"riverman" wrote in message ...
I mean it. Four more years of President Bush could mean a lot of our
wilderness gets opened up to development and timber harvesting. I haven't
been this worried for the wildlands since James Watt.

--riverman

I have read, and reread, and posted follow ups along this thread. I
have found it stimulating and enlightening to listen to all your
input. But I have come up with a question, which I am not finding an
answer.

You say, you mean this and that, but what do you mean by "wilderness"?
It sounds like you are located near the Grand Canyon, where the air is
becoming more polluted. Others speak of the Giant Redwoods, and
Denali. But it seems to me the wilderness is already gone according to
the Souix, and Shoshone, Utes, and Blackfeet, and all the other
hundreds of tribes, many which have dissapeared as well. Even what we
call wilderness would not be so, if seen through their eyes. It seems
to me, that wilderness is something we conceive of in our own mind,
depending on our own particular interest and bias.

Who is living in the White House, has little to do with the remaining
wilderness, and the preservation of our particular corner. My
relatives were ejected in the early 1900s, from Cade's Cove in what is
now Great Smokey Mtn Nat. Park. The great enviromentalist President T.
Roosevelt decided to set aside this area of wilderness, for everyone
to enjoy. Now for my relatives this really ruined the wilderness
experience, and for the mass of humanity that decends on the loop road
during the peak tourist season, I can't see that this is much of a
wilderness experience either. Yet, there are mountains and trees,
flowering dales, and everyone seems to enjoy the vista.

Is the wilderness only to do with the big places, with big mtns, and
big trees, and big canyons. Could it be that we who are content to
paddle, should not learn to appreciate the wilderness in small
places,and be willing to share this with others. Instead of getting
involved in the blame game, and trying to hang our lack of ability to
observe the wilderness all around us on the current President, which
really just detracts from the solitude of our hidden places with all
the shouting!

The wilderness is gone, since even before the Mayflower landed. With
the first man setting foot in the wild place, we started changing it,
even if it was a mocassin clad foot on the Bering Strait. It is just a
matter of degree, and how fast it is changing. For the buffalo it
changed real fast. They were unable to adapt, we must adapt, or go the
way of the buffalo. Being a romantic about the wild places sounds
great, but will not change history. Having grown up in the 60's, and
played hippie for awhile, I love the Liberals with all their romantic
idealism. However that era is also gone. We have to learn to adapt,
and compromise, even on the enviroment, and we all will survive.

Is this dribble? Yes, but you tell me about what you mean by
"wilderness", and if we all start talking about that, then we will be
talking about what we really want to be talking about and changing.
Then the politicians will listen. That's what politicians do, is
listen (take Polls), and talk (I think we know about that part),
because they like to be popular (majority vote). Is any of this wrong,
no, it's just the way it is, and that is reality! Otherwise there is
just all this squealing in the wind, that they all tune out and turn
off, which is not what any of us want for our living place!


Thanks for bringing up the subject, no offense meant to any one.
Let's just make sure the song we are singing is what we really want to
be singing, and learn to sing in harmony. None of us are irrelevant,
nore should we be irreverent, and we should always respect the
President. Whomever he is, because he represents us all whether we
like it or not. If we fail on any of these, we will only hurt those,
and that which we love the most, the place we live!

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

wrote in message ...
It should not surprise any of us that politicians always find money to
spend on their pet projects. I just prefer this President's pets, than
the alternative offering!

So you are not with us in the war against pollution?


See that is exactly the problem, unless I fight the battle, the same
as you do, then the Liberal goes into the very rant and finger
pointing, that even in this last election, proved them ineffective.
The post election response has been almost spastic, and certainly sad!

Of course I am not for pollution. This simplistic approach which
presents itself as exclusive and elite intellectualism is the reason
you lost. You apparently still don't get it as has been pointed out
many times in this thread already. Should we assume that because the
Liberals, lost, that all is lost regarding the environment. No, it is
just how the battle is going to be fought, and I hope that you do not
prove yourself ineffective again, for the environments sake!

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

"Keenan Wellar" wrote:

Interesting. This ties in with American Puritanism, actually.

One President lies about whether or not he got a blow job, and he is almost
impeached.

One President lies to start a war killing thousands of people, and he gets
re-elected!

Again you demonstrate, how out of contact you are with the issues that
are important to the US voter. For a Canadian, maybe that is not too
important, but for the liberals down here, this lack of discreation
spelt major losses. Those who make similar observations down here, and
try to base their political position on this quicksand, are doomed to
repeat history, happily for me!

As far as a later post in the thread, I drink Aquafina, and filtered
tap. Protects me from all the crap that the Liberal environmentalist
have failed to remove! Considering, they had the last 30 or 40 years
to do it!

Touching on the subject of American Puritanism, it seems that there is
some real sensitivity here. By modifing it with American, you imply
that there are various kinds, and that they may be more acceptable to
you. If what you mean, is Conservative Fundementalism, that is a
different thing entirely. The Puritans were actually a fairly liberal
bunch, and is represented most strongly in the state of Pennsylvania
with the Amish. A very loving group of people, in a blue state.

The CFR crowd, on the other hand, is a brilliant crowd of rascals that
will do almost anything to win. Yes, it started in the Clinton era,
with pointing out his picadillos. Then once in power, they even had
the audacity to do what they said they were going to do withour really
asking the Dems permission. Sure sometimes the Dems stood in the way,
but that just meant the CFR's just dug in deeper, and ralleyed their
crowd to get out and vote. Sounds like what the Dems need to do!

Although I doubt that they will catch President Bush with his pants
down, talk about squandering political capital. Then they really had
the CFR's on the ropes, with their protesting the way the war is being
fought, until the best they could do was offer a old Viet vet, which
required fighting the Viet war all over again (not that I have
anything against Vets, but oddly, they chose to be on what they
perceived as the moral high ground, this time). And all this before
the current struggle could be addressed. Talk about mismanging the
play clock! And now there is all this squealing about having to give
the Dems their fair share of the Congressional agenda. They lost, they
don't get much.

And yet the squealing goes on! Show some dignity, and suck it up!

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

in article , Tinkerntom at
wrote on 11/15/04 10:54 PM:

"Keenan Wellar" wrote:

Interesting. This ties in with American Puritanism, actually.

One President lies about whether or not he got a blow job, and he is almost
impeached.

One President lies to start a war killing thousands of people, and he gets
re-elected!

Again you demonstrate, how out of contact you are with the issues that
are important to the US voter.

Not at all. I understand that Americans think one blow job is more serious
than dropping bombs on thousands of people.


Touching on the subject of American Puritanism, it seems that there is
some real sensitivity here. By modifing it with American, you imply
that there are various kinds, and that they may be more acceptable to
you. If what you mean, is Conservative Fundementalism, that is a
different thing entirely. The Puritans were actually a fairly liberal
bunch, and is represented most strongly in the state of Pennsylvania
with the Amish. A very loving group of people, in a blue state.

I'm definitely not talking about the Amish. I'm talking about the anti-homo
more guns more jesus crowd that seems to dominate the middle and south of
the country.

The CFR crowd, on the other hand, is a brilliant crowd of rascals that
will do almost anything to win. Yes, it started in the Clinton era,
with pointing out his picadillos. Then once in power, they even had
the audacity to do what they said they were going to do withour really
asking the Dems permission. Sure sometimes the Dems stood in the way,
but that just meant the CFR's just dug in deeper, and ralleyed their
crowd to get out and vote. Sounds like what the Dems need to do!

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.

Tinkerntom wrote:
Of course I am not for pollution. This simplistic approach which
presents itself as exclusive and elite intellectualism is the reason
you lost. You apparently still don't get it as has been pointed out
many times in this thread already. Should we assume that because the
Liberals, lost, that all is lost regarding the environment. No, it is
just how the battle is going to be fought, and I hope that you do not
prove yourself ineffective again, for the environments sake!

It was just the logical approach of your Bush that I used,
so if you call that simplistic... I agree.
Or to use your words with other goals:
Of course I am not for terrorism. No, it is just how the battle is
going to be fought, and I hope that you do not prove yourself
ineffective again, for the worlds sake!
As it is now, the war against terrorism is inefficient an ineffective
causing many innocent deaths and making things worse instead
of better.
And with the existence of the concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay,
the state has become the enemy and is creating new seeds
for more terrorism in all the world.

On 15-Nov-2004, Brian Nystrom wrote:

Socialism is an unworkable and failed philophy, at least
when attempted on any kind of a large scale. It leads to reduced
freedoms, confiscatory taxation levels and poor quality services. As a
Canadian, you know that, though perhaps you're unwilling to admit it.

Canada's government is not socialist. It's a constitutional monarchy
with a democratically elected parliament.

Perhaps you could give us some specific examples of where there are
freedoms that are available in the US that are not available in Canada.
I can certainly give examples of freedoms available here that are not
available to Americans.

At current exchange rates, the Canadian dollar is at purchasing power
parity with the US. In other words, US$0.83 (C$1.00) buys the same goods
and services in Canada as US$1.00 does in the US. That is after the
"confiscatory" tax levels. Last I checked, corporate tax levels in
Canada are lower than in the US.

Poor quality services? Examples please.

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

Mike

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

--riverman

-

"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!