bushwhacked

[MtnGoat]

why shouldn't there be logging on public lands? We are the public, we benefit from the wood products at the *same* time those who produce them benefit from selling these products. Every wood product that changes hands *proves* it's value to those who buy it, nobody pays for something they don't feel is worth more than the dollar in their pocket.

 

This does not mean good management should not take place, it does not mean good practices shouldn't be used, I'm merely making the point that there is nothing magical about private vs public trees.

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Flash Amazing:

Right-minded individuals...

---

Nothing you've written makes me believe that you are right of center. Further, how is it that you are so fucking arrogant that you think your thinking is "right"; i.e., correct?

 

Greg W

[Roger]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg W:

Wow, looks like they hooked another sucker. CFR is bullshit and an affront to 1st Amendment rights (freedom of speech, freedom to seek redress of greivances). It's called incumbent protection. - contact your Reps & Senators, vote them out, give money to the lobby of your choice.

Greg W

---

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "another sucker," but I'm guessing you're a fan of justice Rehnquist, who two years ago voted with a majority of the Court to uphold its 1976 ruling that - gasp - money is property, not speech, and that limitations on financial contributions to political candidates do not amount to restrictions on speech in violation of the First Amendment. The only "speech" implications of such laws were addressed in the 1976 decision, where the court held that individuals cannot be resticted from spending their own money on their own campaigns. Hence, Ross Perot. Campaign finance limitations do not restrict people from voicing their concerns to their elected representatives. Everyone is still free to write, call, picket, whatever. The point of such restrictions is to keep the Enrons of the world from having a significantly louder voice than everyone else. A slightly more level playing field is clearly an improvement, IMHO.

[erik]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg W:

Wow, looks like they hooked another sucker. CFR is bullshit and an affront to 1st Amendment rights (freedom of speech, freedom to seek redress of greivances). It's called incumbent protection. - contact your Reps & Senators, vote them out, give money to the lobby of your choice.

Greg W

---

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "another sucker," but I'm guessing you're a fan of justice Rehnquist, who two years ago voted with a majority of the Court to uphold its 1976 ruling that - gasp - money is property, not speech, and that limitations on financial contributions to political candidates do not amount to restrictions on speech in violation of the First Amendment. The only "speech" implications of such laws were addressed in the 1976 decision, where the court held that individuals cannot be resticted from spending their

own

money on their own campaigns. Hence, Ross Perot. Campaign finance limitations do not restrict people from voicing their concerns to their elected representatives. Everyone is still free to write, call, picket, whatever. The point of such restrictions is to keep the Enrons of the world from having a

significantly

louder voice than everyone else. A slightly more level playing field is clearly an improvement, IMHO.

---

too bad it only sounds good and does not work that way.....anyone want to help me fund a trip to sweeden for sen murray?? maybe then she will respond to emails about subjects that are not on her pricing list....

[Roger]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg W:

Further, how is it that you are so fucking arrogant that you think your thinking is "right"; i.e., correct?

 

Greg W

---

Probably the same thinking that leads you to believe that campaign finance reform is "bullshit," and a violation of the First Amendment... which is, unlike most political blather, demonstrably incorrect (see above) unless you are advocating for the overthrow of our judiciary.

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roger:

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "another sucker," but I'm guessing you're a fan of justice Rehnquist, who two years ago voted with a majority of the Court to uphold its 1976 ruling that - gasp - money is property, not speech, and that limitations on financial contributions to political candidates do not amount to restrictions on speech in violation of the First Amendment. The only "speech" implications of such laws were addressed in the 1976 decision, where the court held that individuals cannot be resticted from spending their

own

money on their own campaigns. Hence, Ross Perot. Campaign finance limitations do not restrict people from voicing their concerns to their elected representatives. Everyone is still free to write, call, picket, whatever. The point of such restrictions is to keep the Enrons of the world from having a

significantly

louder voice than everyone else. A slightly more level playing field is clearly an improvement, IMHO.

---

Financial contribution is political speech (i.e., support) in my opinion. When I send my check to Candidate X, I am saying "this man carries the political ideals that I support." I don't know what constitution you're reading, but mine (approved in 1787) never mentions a "level playing field." Why shouldn't entities (corporations, individuals, etc.) have a louder voice if they are going to bear the greatest impact of legislative actions? Campaign finance reform wasn't an issue in the last election and won't be in this one. Why? Because the average voter doesn't contribute to candidates. The individuals that do, do so because they see how much the government takes from them and restricts their rights so they speak with their pocketbooks.

 

Greg W

[MtnGoat]

"The point of such restrictions is to keep the Enrons of the world from having a significantly louder voice than everyone else."

 

What keeps the CNN's of the world from having a sigificantly louder voice, if everyone is supposed to be equal? Why do they get to disseminate whatever "news" they wish on candidates without any scrutiny to how "loud" they are?

 

There should be no restrictions on campaign financing whatsoever, save prohibitions against fraud and bribery.

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MtnGoat:

"The point of such restrictions is to keep the Enrons of the world from having a significantly louder voice than everyone else."

 

What keeps the CNN's of the world from having a sigificantly louder voice, if everyone is supposed to be equal? Why do they get to disseminate whatever "news" they wish on candidates without any scrutiny to how "loud" they are?

 

There should be no restrictions on campaign financing whatsoever, save prohibitions against fraud and bribery.

---

Well said. Further, remember all the talk by candidates about CFR being protection against illegal use of funding? So, basically the politicians are saying they can't be trusted with money? What's that all about?

 

Greg W

[Dru]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg W:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MtnGoat:

"The point of such restrictions is to keep the Enrons of the world from having a significantly louder voice than everyone else."

 

What keeps the CNN's of the world from having a sigificantly louder voice, if everyone is supposed to be equal? Why do they get to disseminate whatever "news" they wish on candidates without any scrutiny to how "loud" they are?

 

There should be no restrictions on campaign financing whatsoever, save prohibitions against fraud and bribery.

---

Well said. Further, remember all the talk by candidates about CFR being protection against illegal use of funding? So, basically the politicians are saying they can't be trusted with money? What's that all about?

 

Greg W

---

Shit man, you think politicians CAN be trusted with money? Who else - CEOs????

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dru:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg W:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MtnGoat:

"The point of such restrictions is to keep the Enrons of the world from having a significantly louder voice than everyone else."

 

What keeps the CNN's of the world from having a sigificantly louder voice, if everyone is supposed to be equal? Why do they get to disseminate whatever "news" they wish on candidates without any scrutiny to how "loud" they are?

 

There should be no restrictions on campaign financing whatsoever, save prohibitions against fraud and bribery.

---

Well said. Further, remember all the talk by candidates about CFR being protection against illegal use of funding? So, basically the politicians are saying they can't be trusted with money? What's that all about?

 

Greg W

---

Shit man, you think politicians CAN be trusted with money? Who else - CEOs????

---

No, I don't necessarily. However, it struck me as funny that they would admit it. That was a red flag for me that the whole thing was kind of fishy.

[Peter_Puget]

To those who think money plays too big a role in political campaigns I would ask the following:

 

Think about what is at stake. The US economy, world wide economy, possible wars or not wars, the enviroment and so forth. Now tell me what thats worth and without reference tell me how much is spent campaigning.

 

Now tell me without looking what spent on advertising for something like say dish soap.

 

Now dish soap or what ever you've chosen is probably a very small market relative to what's at stake in a politcal debate. And yet for many every day things much more is spent on advertising. What I find amazing is that we care so little that we spend so little.

 

By the way Dru is Canada even a real country? I have some money at home with some queen on it? Who is she ruling!

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg W:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Flash Amazing:

Right-minded individuals...

---

Nothing you've written makes me believe that you are right of center. Further, how is it that you are so fucking arrogant that you think your thinking is "right"; i.e., correct?

 

Greg W

---

Dr. Flash Amazing is only so fucking arrogant as to have enough of a sense of humor to suggest that those who would show their disapproval of Resident Bush on his visit to PDX are "right-minded." It was a (highly effective) mini-troll/jab at the right-wingers (e.g. you) on the board who think they are right-minded. Don't we all think we're right? The implication of that phrase that DFA might be politically "right" was coincidental and unintended, as right-wingism is not something with which the Doctor would usually align himself.

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Puget:

By the way Dru is Canada even a real country? I have some money at home with some queen on it? Who is she ruling!

---

Canada is the bastard child of Great Britian and the red-headed stepchild of the United States! While we're on the subject, what's with Canadadians thinking they have the bestest beer in the world? Pretty young country to boast that attitude. I drank in a pub in Austria that has been serving beer since 743 A.D.

 

Greg W

[Dru]

Yeah but our beer wins all the awards, try some Unibroue sometime.

 

As for the Queen We Will We Will Rock You!!!

 

Don't you guys have a King, George II???

[iain]

Yes we do:

[Dru]

quote:

---

Originally posted by iain:

Yes we do:

---

Funny I thought he looked more like this

[iain]

yes sorry I was mistaken.

 

 

[ 08-22-2002, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: iain ]

[allthumbs]

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Eh? Dead fish, lonely trees, seal pups with red tears tattooed on them, and ... is that an angry weasel?

[Roger]

speaking of George II, things have gotten pretty zesty here at ground zero of the Bush visit. Pave hawk choppers circling around, six guys in black on the roof of the Hilton with binocs and rifles, huge crowds of protesters marching around beating drums and clashing with cops in riot gear. I'd better knock off early for drinks.

[mattp]

Mtn Goat_

I don't think many here would have argued that there should be no logging on public lands if we had not already logged so much of what we have. It is the fact that uncut timber (at least uncut timber that actually includes full-sized trees) is damn near non-existent that makes people like me think we should protect what remaining old-growth there is.

 

Greg-

Didn't Thomas Jefferson or somebody write that "all men are created equal?"

The "players" may not have been the same ones that we are talking about today, but the concept of a level playing field is not new.

[AlpineK]

The forests in the US are way too thick. How did they get that way? Both Democrat and Republican administrations spent a bunch of money to put out fires.

 

So the question is how do we correct the mistakes of the past. Thinning works. The problem is you can't do anything but chip up all the debris from thinning. Chips aren't worth very much; I give mine away for free. Logs can be worth something; and most companies like to try and make money. It isn't too shocking that logging companies would want to cut some nice big trees along with all the crap.

 

Another approach is to stop fighting fires unless they are likely to burn peoples houses. You don't have to pay to start fires; hell lots of people like to start fires for free.

 

I am so down with burning. Burn, burn, burn!

[MtnGoat]

hi mattp,

I also agree remaining old growth needs protection, as you rightly point out the percentage left is very low. However on all previously logged areas, IMO it is possible to manage them properly using modern methods without permanent damage to the resource. If a bit of second growth area needs to be off limits, I don't have a big problem with that if we're not talking about a total ban on timber sales.

 

Similarly, if for some reason a case could be made for a small amount of remaining OG to be cut, much as I don't think it's a good idea, it may have merit in special circumstances. What these might be I have no idea at this time.

 

Basically what I'm getting at is that purist, all or nothing positions on logging public lands, logging or not logging OG, etc, tend to be so rigid they ignore the role of making reasonable compromises in good faith for better overall outcomes.

[MtnGoat]

On the thinning, if logging companies working thinning areas were allocated every 4th tree or something as a deal sweetener, that seems reasonable IMO.

 

After all, partial cuts reseed themselves quite well and the loss due to selective cutting to improve the economics of thinning operations is probably far less than the losses of trees in a big fire.

[Roger]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MtnGoat:

There should be no restrictions on campaign financing whatsoever, save prohibitions against fraud and bribery.

---

okay, I was going to leave, but then went back and did some reading... MtnGoat, you have wisely placed your hoof directly on the problem! In a system where there are no limitations on donations to political candidates/incumbents, it is impossible to tell what is bribery and what isn't. Just say, oh, hypothetically, that some company called Enron gave millions of dollars to the Bush campaign. They are probably thinking that they are going to get something for their money, right? Okay, here's a better, more politically-neutral example: the senate is considering a bill that will have major impacts on the auto industry. It turns out that the vote will be close, and will likely come down to two or three key senators. The auto industry lobbyists just happen to make huge contributions of money to those senators in the week before the vote on the bill. They vote in favor, and the bill narrowly passes... did the $$ play a role? Probably. Is this bribery, or just the way the system works? Hard to say. Which is why it makes sense to place some limitations this kind of influence, IMHO.