Enjoy the wild places while they last
 

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

this year's trip to Sylvania Wilderness (Upper MI) included seeing a couple
of moter boats for the first time thanks to a conservative judge's
ruling...got me to vote Dems across the board for the first time...I hate
what's happening!
"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

riverman wrote:

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



You said it. This summer, I went up to the Redwoods in an effort to show
my son what the forests were like once. They are so seriously depleted
that my sister said, "I can't bear to go up there any more, it's so
terrible." Did stop her from voting for Bush, sadly.

If you care about the environment, look now. It will exist only on film
in a few years.

Ruefully,

Rick

On 04 Nov 2004 02:21:20 GMT, pchuck (socemdog) wrote:

Hey, Myron,

I would really appreciate it if someone could tell me specifically any action
taken by President Bush or his administration that has threatened our
wildernesses.
Robin

Socemdog

http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=1857

this year's trip to Sylvania Wilderness (Upper MI) included seeing a
couple
of moter boats for the first time thanks to a conservative judge's
ruling...got me to vote Dems across the board for the first time...I hate
what's happening!

Same here... had to dodge powerboats whilst canoeing across crossing Crooked
Lake. What scares me more than Bush getting re-elected is that it looks
like the country in general has swung even further to the right. It's one
thing if the president doesn't give a **** about the environment; it's
something altogether different (and *much* worse) when the president AND the
electorate don't care.

The environment was a non-issue this time. There was almost no
mention of it in the debates. All I heard from the enviromental
organizations I follow, was, vote for the enviroment. Not- vote for x
or y because of his stand on the environment.

I hate to admit it, but most of America does not care a bit about
environmental issues.

Now that I think about it, that may be the only area where we agree
with rest of the third world- slash and burn now! I can not imagine
North Korea would have any different policies than Gee Dub in that
regard.

Or in a few other areas, too.

(wait a sec, let me find those flame proof undies)


-Dan V.
feeling slightly nauseous right now.


On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 21:14:00 -0600, "Felsenmeer"
wrote:

this year's trip to Sylvania Wilderness (Upper MI) included seeing a
couple
of moter boats for the first time thanks to a conservative judge's
ruling...got me to vote Dems across the board for the first time...I hate
what's happening!

Same here... had to dodge powerboats whilst canoeing across crossing Crooked
Lake. What scares me more than Bush getting re-elected is that it looks
like the country in general has swung even further to the right. It's one
thing if the president doesn't give a **** about the environment; it's
something altogether different (and *much* worse) when the president AND the
electorate don't care.

Hey, Myron,

I would really appreciate it if someone could tell me specifically any
action
taken by President Bush or his administration that has threatened our
wildernesses.

Robin

Socemdog


http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=1857


Op ed pieces about reports from "green" organizations are hardly hard evidence
of Bush's "Assault" on the environment. The simple fact is that many of the
actions taken during the current Administration
have either been overblown or misinterpeted, often on purpose to raise funds
for organization like Sierra Club that has not be real successful with
membership in the past years. I'm not claiming that Bush is the best
environmental steward, but he is no worse that the Clinton Administration.

Many "green" issues come down to use and access. Notice the first one mentioned
here was motors, which is more of an issue of personal preference than one of
the environment. Although one can argue that this is higher impact than non
motorized use, on lakes and rivers I not really sure that the issue is that
much in your favor.

I've argued for years that many of the "Green" organizations have focused on
their support, often blindly, to one party and at the national level. Well, now
they
have lost again, can even complain about the election being stolen this time,
and wonder why they aren't being included in the decision making.

I would take a deep breath, relax, and start looking at the individual issues.
SYOTR
Larry C.

"riverman" ) writes:

.... I haven't
been this worried for the wildlands since James Watt.

Watt and Boulton built steam pumps to drain mines. You must be thinking of
someone else. If you knew them as you claim, it's amazing at your age you
have the strength to lift a paddle. :)

The principle threat to "wilderness" is all the paddlers and backpackers
scaring away the wildlife. I wonder why people don't stay at home to
paddle and hike. It's a fact that most people in North Amercia live in
cities and most cities are located on the shores of lakes and rivers. If
you want a pleasant place to paddle amd hike then get your city to clean
up the shoreline. If you are real wilderness enthusiasts you would stick
to your own backyard instead of ignoring it to drive long distances to
paddle in places where you contribute to the loss of wilderness. I have
paddled all afternoon within the City Of Ottawa on a weekday and not met
another person while on the saem afternoon there are traffic jams on the
portages in Algonquin Park's "wilderness".

As far as I'm concerned if you look up and see vapour trails it's not
wilderness.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

"Larry Cable" wrote in message
...
Hey, Myron,

I would really appreciate it if someone could tell me specifically any
action
taken by President Bush or his administration that has threatened our
wildernesses.

Robin

Socemdog


http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=1857


Op ed pieces about reports from "green" organizations are hardly hard
evidence
of Bush's "Assault" on the environment. The simple fact is that many of
the
actions taken during the current Administration
have either been overblown or misinterpeted, often on purpose to raise
funds
for organization like Sierra Club that has not be real successful with
membership in the past years. I'm not claiming that Bush is the best
environmental steward, but he is no worse that the Clinton Administration.


Well, who do you EXPECT to write critical reviews about Bush's environmental
poilicies? The White House? You can reject any messenger you want, but first
check their claims. Although the op-ed pieces are not the evidence
themselves, the legislation and rulings they refer to are public record.
I'm a bit overwhelmed at trying to find a few indicitive 'specific issues',
as every link I follow is loaded with them. Follow any of the news stories
here;
http://www.cspo.org/home/news/ The one about the clean air degredation in
the Grand Canyon is from the Salt Lake Tribune....hardly the Sierra Club.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...0/MN161026.DTL links
to an article in the SanFran Chronicle about Bush's relaxation of the laws
creating roadless areas in National Forests. This opened up millions of
acres of forestland to timber industries, that had previously been off
limits, including hundreds of thousands of acres of old growth in the
Tongass in Alaska.

In Feb of this year, there was a consortium of scientists and Nobel
laureates, 63 in all, who condemned Bush's environmental policies as being
partisian, and of "systematically and deliberately distorting" the
scientific research to further political gain. I'm sure not all of those
guys were in the pay of the National Wildlife Resources Council.
http://www.washingtonfax.com/samples/2004/20040219.html

Last year, Bush instructed the Dept of Interior to stop barring drilling for
petroresources or mining on land proposed for wilderness protection. In
fact, he has put the least amount of land into wilderness status of any
presiden since the Wilderness Act was first proposed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5898203/

This is just the tip of the iceberg, and I've tried avoiding the more
'Green' organizations and their rapsheets. However, I challenge others to
do their own research into this, and come up with any way that they can
show that Bush has been a friend to wilderness!

While you're at it, look up "Wise Use" and look at the connections between
Bush environmental (and wilderness policy) and this organization.

--riverman

"William R. Watt" wrote in message
...

"riverman" ) writes:

... I haven't
been this worried for the wildlands since James Watt.

Watt and Boulton built steam pumps to drain mines. You must be thinking of
someone else. If you knew them as you claim, it's amazing at your age you
have the strength to lift a paddle. :)


Right: Watts, not Watt.

James Watts was Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Interior. Never met him,
but he was on a Grand Canyon trip just a day upstream from me back in the
early 80s. He got to the Confluence, declared that this was "all too
boring", and had a chopper evacuate him out and he got a flight back to DC.
When his boatmen caught up to my private the next day, we had a serious
party with all the leftover food and liquor, courtesy of the US government.

Watts was known as the 'anti-envronment Secretary" as he made statements
like "We will mine more, we will drill more, we will cut more timber!" and
he described environmental organizations as "left-wing cults dedicated to
bringing down the type of government I believe in". He declared on Dec 1,
1981 that he would no longer meet with environmentalists. On Dec 24, he
decided to open the entire US coastline to offshore drilling (he didn't get
that one through). Later that year, he instututed a policy that stopped
reviewing any more land in Alaska for Wilderness status (he DID get that one
through). And so on.

He was forced to resign two weeks after telling a group of coal lobbysts
that his commission "had every kind of mix you can have. I have a black, a
woman, two Jews and a cripple." He was a real piece of work.

Interestingly enough, although Watt's policy that barred reviewing land for
wilderness status in Alaska was later rescinded by Bruce Babbitt, Alaska is
in the process of reinstating it. When land is being reviewed for wilderness
status, it is protected from developement, mining or drilling. Bush
suppports reinstating a version of this policy allowing a 'last chance' to
open up land slated for wilderness protection. Sort of one last grab at the
bride, I guess. g


The principle threat to "wilderness" is all the paddlers and backpackers
scaring away the wildlife. I wonder why people don't stay at home to
paddle and hike. It's a fact that most people in North Amercia live in
cities and most cities are located on the shores of lakes and rivers. If
you want a pleasant place to paddle amd hike then get your city to clean
up the shoreline. If you are real wilderness enthusiasts you would stick
to your own backyard instead of ignoring it to drive long distances to
paddle in places where you contribute to the loss of wilderness. I have
paddled all afternoon within the City Of Ottawa on a weekday and not met
another person while on the saem afternoon there are traffic jams on the
portages in Algonquin Park's "wilderness".

As far as I'm concerned if you look up and see vapour trails it's not
wilderness.


You have some valid points there. I like going into wilderness areas, but in
reality I haven't been into a real one in decades. Most of my
camping/paddling etc is in remote regions, but they aren't wilderness. But I
really like the idea that they are out there...that there are huge tracts of
land that are off-limits to developers, don't have roads through them, and
are practically inaccessible.

Back in the dam building days, Floyd Dominy and others (head of the Bureau
of Reclamation) used to say that 'all that water is being wasted' if a dam
wasn't harnessing it. Now we realize that freeflowing streams are far from a
waste: they represent the original ecosystems, with all the subtle nuances
and unknown entities. We can always make a managed stream: you can't make a
wild one. Same with wilderness: its not being wasted if no one is in there.
But even more so, just because no one is in there (or hardly anyone),
doesn't mean we have to open it up either!

--riverman

In article ,
"riverman" wrote:

"William R. Watt" wrote in message
...

"riverman" ) writes:

... I haven't
been this worried for the wildlands since James Watt.

Watt and Boulton built steam pumps to drain mines. You must be thinking of
someone else. If you knew them as you claim, it's amazing at your age you
have the strength to lift a paddle. :)


Right: Watts, not Watt.

James Watts was Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Interior.

Nope - you were right the first time. It was James Watt (specifically
James G. Watt). But the rest sounds about right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Watt

Mike

--
Mike Zulauf

"Mike Zulauf" wrote in message
...
Nope - you were right the first time. It was James Watt (specifically
James G. Watt). But the rest sounds about right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Watt


Yep, you're right. I was right, then I was wrong, now I'm right again. :-)
Call me John Kerry.

http://www.doi.gov/past_secretaries.html#watt


--riverman

In a previous article, "riverman" said:
Watts was known as the 'anti-envronment Secretary" as he made statements
like "We will mine more, we will drill more, we will cut more timber!" and

You forgot his scarier pronouncements. I don't remember the exact quote,
but it was about how he expected the Second Coming to happen any day now,
and Jesus wouldn't be happy if we hadn't used up all the natural resources
before that happened.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not
because they are easy, but because they are hard...." - John F Kennedy

"riverman"

typed in Message-ID:
References:

http://www.cspo.org/home/news/ The one about the clean air degredation in
the Grand Canyon is from the Salt Lake Tribune....hardly the Sierra Club.

Are you claiming that this has just happened? Or that he isn't fixing it?
Why didn't Clinton fix it, he had 8 years?
SYOTR
Larry C.

"Larry Cable" wrote in message
...
"riverman"

typed in Message-ID:
References:

http://www.cspo.org/home/news/ The one about the clean air degredation in
the Grand Canyon is from the Salt Lake Tribune....hardly the Sierra Club.

Are you claiming that this has just happened? Or that he isn't fixing it?
Why didn't Clinton fix it, he had 8 years?


Oh, air quality over the canyon has been degrading for years...we talked
about it in the 80s. Clinton did pass legislation to start to fix it, but
Bush suspended it, and even put in stopgaps that let emissions producers
'buy' emission credits from others who don't use theirs. So now its getting
worse than ever, but with a legal hall pass.

A quote from a friend of mine:

"About the natural environment... what the Bush administration has
*already* done is a matter of record. Those who don't think the
administration's aim is to roll back the entire range of environmental
protections it's taken a century to put in place just haven't been paying
close attention. So let's take stock after 4 years and see what Bush and
big business have done that they were constrained from doing during the
first four years in order to get elected again. No such restraints now, a
firm grip on both houses of Congress, and (given the spin one hears on FOX)
the pretense of a "sweeping mandate"....

He's got the bit in his teeth now. At least last election, he was promising
to be a 'uniter' and a 'compassionate conservative'. No such pretense
anymore.

--riverman

Paul Tomblin wrote:

In a previous article, "riverman" said:


Watts was known as the 'anti-envronment Secretary" as he made statements
like "We will mine more, we will drill more, we will cut more timber!" and



You forgot his scarier pronouncements. I don't remember the exact quote,
but it was about how he expected the Second Coming to happen any day now,
and Jesus wouldn't be happy if we hadn't used up all the natural resources
before that happened.

These pronouncements, at least in the U.S., began with the Millerites in
1843. There has since been frequent need for updating & recomputing of
the date of Rapture which they're certain will arrive, even though
there's not a shred of evidence to support their whispy philosophy.
(There was no mention of resources in the earlier days of these
movements - in fact, hundreds failed to plant, gather hay/crops or lay
in firewood at the expected times which naturally resulted in unexpected
hardship & suffering but no Rapture.)

Pete H

--
Either everyone has rights or some have privileges.
It's really that simple.
Walt Kelly

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 19:24:52 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

In a previous article, "riverman" said:
Watts was known as the 'anti-envronment Secretary" as he made statements
like "We will mine more, we will drill more, we will cut more timber!" and

You forgot his scarier pronouncements. I don't remember the exact quote,

I am not saying you are wrong, but either _find_ that quote, or wear
flame-proofs.....

I do think you are foolish, if not wrong, to place such an
inflammatory statement without backup on this forum.

but it was about how he expected the Second Coming to happen any day now,
and Jesus wouldn't be happy if we hadn't used up all the natural resources
before that happened.

************************************************** ***
Have you noticed that people always run from what
they _need_ toward what they want?????

In a previous article, Old Nick said:
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 19:24:52 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) vaguely proposed a theory

You forgot his scarier pronouncements. I don't remember the exact quote,

I am not saying you are wrong, but either _find_ that quote, or wear
flame-proofs.....

I do think you are foolish, if not wrong, to place such an
inflammatory statement without backup on this forum.

http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/Pat_Rob...Prophecies.htm
"God gave us these things to use. After the last tree is felled, Christ
will come back."


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
What philology luser tried to hang "fear of sameness" on bigotry?
Every time i see the word i want to kick his shins.
-- Pat Wade, on homophobia

Sorry about that, got interrupted.

To continue.

"riverman"

typed in Message-ID:
References:

http://www.cspo.org/home/news/ The one about the clean air degredation in
the Grand Canyon is from the Salt Lake Tribune....hardly the Sierra Club.

Are you claiming that this has just happened? Or that he isn't fixing it?
Why didn't Clinton fix it, he had 8 years?

links
to an article in the SanFran Chronicle about Bush's relaxation of the laws
creating roadless areas in National Forests. This opened up millions of
acres of forestland to timber industries, that had previously been off

limits, including hundreds of thousands of acres of old growth in the
Tongass in Alaska.

Actually had only been off limits since Jan.2001, when as a lame duck
President,
Clinton instituted the "Roadless Rules".
It was in court numerous times, the Tongass NF settled out of court, then there
was a Permanent Injuction against enforcing this rule change. While the Bush
Administration would probably support this ruling, they didn't have much to do
with it.
Presidents don't like to see administrative actions overturned by court
decision, set a bad precedent.

n Feb of this year, there was a consortium of scientists and Nobel
laureates, 63 in all, who condemned Bush's environmental policies as being
partisian, and of "systematically and deliberately distorting" the
scientific research to further political gain. I'm sure not all of

those
guys were in the pay of the National Wildlife Resources Council.
http://www.washingtonfax.com/samples/2004/20040219.html



I just followed all the links provided and found a lot of stuff like "well
found" and
"documented", but they did'nt seem to produce much of it. I'm afraid I have to
put this one down as editorial. I try to follow up with a little web search
later on that one.

Last year, Bush instructed the Dept of Interior to stop barring drilling for
petroresources or mining on land proposed for wilderness protection. In
fact, he has put the least amount of land into wilderness status of any
presiden since the Wilderness Act was first proposed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5898

I'm sure this one is true. Last time I looked, the US economy still run on Oil,

so I have to say that I support this one.

OTOH, Increased funding from the Conservation Fund

Increased funding for wetland protection
(Must be a duck hunter).

Made the first major increase in the Clean Air Standards for a long time,
including the first time levels of Mercury were included
(outside of medical waste).

Not wonderful, but then again he didn't run on a "green" platform. But he isn't
clearcutting Yellowstone or stripmining The Smokies either. Despite the uproar,
he has been pretty middle of the road on all of this stuff and support the
things that the people that voted for him support. So he won't do
anything to the Clean Water or Air act, but will not restrict access to Public
Land.






SYOTR
Larry C.

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 01:14:43 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

In a previous article, Old Nick said:
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 19:24:52 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) vaguely proposed a theory

You forgot his scarier pronouncements. I don't remember the exact quote,

I am not saying you are wrong, but either _find_ that quote, or wear
flame-proofs.....

I do think you are foolish, if not wrong, to place such an
inflammatory statement without backup on this forum.

http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/Pat_Rob...Prophecies.htm
"God gave us these things to use. After the last tree is felled, Christ
will come back."

OK. Thanks. Be interesting to see what he _does_ then, though! G

Also, that does not appear to have anything to do with Watt(s).
************************************************** ***
Have you noticed that people always run from what
they _need_ toward what they want?????

In a previous article, Old Nick said:
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 01:14:43 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) vaguely proposed a theory
http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/Pat_Rob...Prophecies.htm
"God gave us these things to use. After the last tree is felled, Christ
will come back."

OK. Thanks. Be interesting to see what he _does_ then, though! G

Also, that does not appear to have anything to do with Watt(s).

Scroll down. The quote in question does come from Watt.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"How do you feel about women's rights?"
"I like either side of them."
-- Groucho Marx, 1890-1977

In article ,
Old Nick wrote:

I am not saying you are wrong, but either _find_ that quote, or wear
flame-proofs.....

Here's a couple gems from our good friend James Watt:

My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call
upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns.

We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming
is at hand.

http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/james_watt/

Good enough for you? Interestingly enough, Gail Norton (our present
Secretary of the Interior) is a protege of James Watt.

Mike

--
Mike Zulauf

"riverman" typed:

"William R. Watt" wrote in message
...

"riverman" ) writes:

... I haven't
been this worried for the wildlands since James Watt.

Watt and Boulton built steam pumps to drain mines. You must be thinking of
someone else. If you knew them as you claim, it's amazing at your age you
have the strength to lift a paddle. :)


Right: Watts, not Watt.

James Watts was Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Interior. [snip]


Q. How much energy does it take to destroy a forest?

Rivermyron, I think if you google up "Interior Secretary James Watt",
you will discover that you were right the first time. It's "James
Watt". William is to be forgiven, since he's a furriner. If I were a
furriner, I don't think I'd want to squander much of my valuable time
following American domestic political issues, though I'd be worried
about whether the US President was going to find some pretext to
invide MY country next.

A: One Watt.


-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
================================================== ====================

On 5 Nov 2004 07:21:56 -0800, (Oci-One Kanubi)
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

If I were a
furriner, I don't think I'd want to squander much of my valuable time
following American domestic political issues, though I'd be worried
about whether the US President was going to find some pretext to
invide MY country next.

Nope. We all worry about what you lot do _inside_ the US as well,
never fear.

************************************************** ***
Have you noticed that people always run from what
they _need_ toward what they want?????

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 01:14:43 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/Pat_Rob...Prophecies.htm
"God gave us these things to use. After the last tree is felled, Christ
will come back."

And I'm betting he's gonna want to kick some ass when He sees what's
been done...

;^)

Oci-One Kanubi ) writes:

....William is to be forgiven, since he's a furriner. If I were a
furriner, I don't think I'd want to squander much of my valuable time
following American domestic political issues, though I'd be worried

Thank you. Most of my knowledger of US politics comes from the left wing
union-run Canadian Broadcasting Corp. which accounts for my great
misunderstanding. However I do read Forbes magazine and there is an
interesting article in the latest issue on how negotiatiors are making
wildnerness areas out of corporate landholdings by unravelling all the
legal issues among the owners of the surface rights, the timber rights,
the subsruface rigths, and the various levels of government. Sounds promising.

I still think people should get their own cities cleaned up instead of
running off to the so-called wilderness to get away from the smell of
so-called civilization.

I don't think anyone can cite Jesus Chris on environmental issues since he
was only concerned with things spiritual. In his teaching God is concerned
about your soul, not your physical environment.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

On 6-Nov-2004, (William R. Watt) wrote:

Most of my knowledger of US politics comes from the left wing
union-run Canadian Broadcasting Corp. which accounts for my great
misunderstanding.

That's funny - I listen/watch the CBC and I know about James Watt
and a lot of other US political issues. I don't think the problem
is your sources.

Mike

In a previous article, "Michael Daly" said:
On 6-Nov-2004, (William R. Watt) wrote:
Most of my knowledger of US politics comes from the left wing
union-run Canadian Broadcasting Corp. which accounts for my great
misunderstanding.

That's funny - I listen/watch the CBC and I know about James Watt
and a lot of other US political issues. I don't think the problem
is your sources.

I was going to say that I am a Canadian and the CBC was my main source of
TV news (we could only get two channels where I lived, and I hated CTV)
through the Reagan years, and yet at the time I knew all this stuff about
James Watt. But then William Watt now has the full resources of the
Internet at his beck and call, and he's still ignorant.

There is a famous exchange, usually attributed to Disraeli and Gladstone:
"After listening to your explanation, I'm still ignorant."
"Yes, but you're much better informed."

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue 0
0 rows returned

wrote in message
...
On 04 Nov 2004 02:21:20 GMT, pchuck (socemdog) wrote:

Hey, Myron,

I would really appreciate it if someone could tell me specifically any
action
taken by President Bush or his administration that has threatened our
wildernesses.
Robin

http://nrdc.org/bushrecord/


LOL Hardly non-biased, and just looking at the first 'article' it is full
of hype and mis-leading spew....

It's not wide open for all snowmobiles. It's just over a max of 700 a day,
all in *guided* groups, and using the same corridors used the rest of the
year by cars.
If you really want to clean up the air, then start banning over a million
and a half vehicles in the park the rest of the year. Oh, wait, you just
want to fuss about the little things, uh?


Since the first article is so full of mis;eading crap, the rest must be
also....

Oh, and then add the "give me your money" spew and you get the ultimate in
self-serving 'needs'....

We can start at the tip of the iceberg-rolling back Clean Air Act
protections via concessions to aging power plants.

"bb" wrote in message
...
On 04 Nov 2004 02:21:20 GMT, pchuck (socemdog) wrote:

Hey, Myron,

I would really appreciate it if someone could tell me specifically any
action
taken by President Bush or his administration that has threatened our
wildernesses.
Robin

Socemdog

http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=1857

On 6-Nov-2004, "rick etter" wrote:

If you really want to clean up the air, then start banning over a million
and a half vehicles in the park the rest of the year. Oh, wait, you just
want to fuss about the little things, uh?

Since when do snowmobiles have the same pollution control equipment as cars?

Mike

riverman wrote:
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.

Funny how all the "Chicken Littles" come out of the woodwork every time
a Republican gets elected President. Yeah, I know, "The sky is falling!"
and "it's the end of the world as we know it". Blah, blah, blah. Their
dire predictions never come to pass, but it doesn't stop them from
repeating them ad nausem. Some people really need to get a life.

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 6-Nov-2004, "rick etter" wrote:

If you really want to clean up the air, then start banning over a million
and a half vehicles in the park the rest of the year. Oh, wait, you just
want to fuss about the little things, uh?

Since when do snowmobiles have the same pollution control equipment as
cars?
======================
Where did I say they do? The fact remains that a few thousand sno-cats
aren't going to equate to almost 2 million cars. Again, if cleaning up the
air in the park is really the intent, then the real solution is the
cars/trucks/buses/RVs.




Mike

) writes:
On 6 Nov 2004 13:46:54 GMT, (William R.
Watt) wrote:

I don't think anyone can cite Jesus Chris on environmental issues since he
was only concerned with things spiritual.

As if the two were unrelated . . . .

Indeed, the spirit exsists separate from the outside world and is
contaminated by it. Goes right back to the Garden of Eden in Christian
theology where knowlege of the temporal world is equated with evil. A true
mystic attempts to cut off all exterior perception in order to know the
inner spirit.

When paddlers call their sport (or recreational passtime, however
one approaches the activity) "spiritual" they are merely being selfish,
self-serving, and trendy. That may or may not not be evil, and it may
be a change from their normal environment, and they may find it pleasant
by comparison, but it's not spiritual.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

Paul Tomblin ) writes:

I was going to say that I am a Canadian and the CBC was my main source of
TV news (we could only get two channels where I lived, and I hated CTV)
through the Reagan years, and yet at the time I knew all this stuff about
James Watt. But then William Watt now has the full resources of the
Internet at his beck and call, and he's still ignorant.

.... Canadian living in the USA where he has a higher income and
lower taxes making paddling a more affordable passtime. :)

I've switched to CBC Radio 2 and am listening to operas instead of left
wing news broadcasts and interviews on CBC Radio 1. every time they
mentioned paddlign on CBC Raio 1 they link it to Canada's arch socialist
Prime Minster (Trudeau) who liked to be photographed in a canoe. When he
paddled teh Back River in the arctic with the Morse's he got bored with
the flat sections. How spiritual can you get?


There is a famous exchange, usually attributed to Disraeli and Gladstone:
"After listening to your explanation, I'm still ignorant."
"Yes, but you're much better informed."

sorry, but by definition one can't be ignorant and informed. they have
opposite meanings. I think it better illustrates the propensity for a
politcian to speak endlessly without actually saying anything. Politics
appeals to the emotions, not the intellect.

why do people blame James Watt? he didn't appoint himself Secetary of some
government department. somebodyh else did. in spite of his politics, you
have to admire anyone in Washingtom who speaks plainly and means what he
says. maybe that's why GW Bush has been reelected. It's why Mike Harris
was reelected in Ontario, and Ralph Klien keeps getting reelcted in
Alberta.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

On 7-Nov-2004, (William R. Watt) wrote:

... Canadian living in the USA where he has a higher income and
lower taxes making paddling a more affordable passtime. :)

And yet the Canadian dollar, currently at US$0.83 is at purchasing
parity with the US$. In other words, for US$0.83, you can buy the
same goods and services in Canada as you can with US$1.00 in the US.
So much for your fantasies.

Paddling equipment has long been cheaper in Canada than in the US
as long as you buy Canadian products.

Mike

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 21:57:37 GMT, "rick etter" wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On 04 Nov 2004 02:21:20 GMT, pchuck (socemdog) wrote:

Hey, Myron,

I would really appreciate it if someone could tell me specifically any
action
taken by President Bush or his administration that has threatened our
wildernesses.
Robin

http://nrdc.org/bushrecord/


LOL Hardly non-biased, and just looking at the first 'article' it is full
of hype and mis-leading spew....

You wanted a list. this is a list. And its quite accurate. Rather than
address the issues and actions raised you instead hide behind the
dismissive labeling so you don't have to think about the content.
====================
Hardly as factual as you'd like to claim. The proof is in that *you* has to
dis-honestly snip out most of my post without annotation of such.
It is you that is hiding. I have pointed out the mis-leading info, and you
have failed to refute it, nor have you tried to engage in conversation.
Instead, you have snipped my comments and spewed your own little spin on
your lack of facts....

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 00:40:39 GMT, Brian Nystrom
wrote:

riverman wrote:
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.

Funny how all the "Chicken Littles" come out of the woodwork every time
a Republican gets elected President. Yeah, I know, "The sky is falling!"
and "it's the end of the world as we know it". Blah, blah, blah. Their
dire predictions never come to pass, but it doesn't stop them from
repeating them ad nausem. Some people really need to get a life.


Think so?
==================
Why is it that you appear to have nothing to say unless somebody else has
already writtten it down for you? You have no thoughts of your own, or
just too stupid to think of anything?



http://chak.org/pages/onion/bush_nightmare.html

"Michael Daly"

in message Message-ID:

Well, the court settlement that allowed snowmobiles back in the Park required
that the outfitters that rented the vast majority of these machines switch to 4
cycle engines with strict limits on the noise levels. The 4 cycle machines are
pretty close to autos in emissions.

SYOTR
Larry C.

Brian Nystrom wrotyped:

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.

Funny how all the "Chicken Littles" come out of the woodwork every time
a Republican gets elected President. Yeah, I know, "The sky is falling!"
and "it's the end of the world as we know it". Blah, blah, blah. Their
dire predictions never come to pass, but it doesn't stop them from
repeating them ad nausem. Some people really need to get a life.


Huh? In 2000, I predicted that electing a drooling idiot as President
was going to have dire consequences, and my prediction has sooooooooo
came to pass.

The Bush administration has fed on the differences amongst Americans
to divide the country more than it has been in my lifetime. It has
encouraged and enhanced the income disparities amongst Americans,
beyond even the kinds of disparities that existed in the robber-baron
decades. It has run us into incredible debt (75% of which is held by
*China*, for gawd's sake!). It has failed to fund the educational
improvements it brags about (like Bush would have a prayer of being
elected by an educated electorate!) It has adopted a secret energy
policy, and it has systematically dismantled our environmental
protections (it is, in the 21st century, evidently OK to **** where
the common people eat). Most disgusting of all, it has used a true
national disaster as a pretext for starting a totally irrelevant war.

This administration has consistently lied to us, and has lived up to
every dire prediction that has been made. These anti-patriots have
turned my beautiful United States into the scourge of the world, and I
cannot express my shame that 50% of Americans are wicked, greedy, or
stupid enough to have sent them back there the continue to drag our
country down into the dirt. Let us all please hope and pray that
this administration fails to maintain its record, and that no more of
the many realistic predictions of disaster actually come to pass.


-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
================================================== ====================