bushwhacked

[ILuvAliens]

quote:

---

Alien, are you teaching Beavis and Butthead forestry 101?! Gimme a break..

---

Give you a break what. Explain. This says nothing CSD.

[Uncle_Tricky]

From the Disassociated Depressed:

 

George Double U Bush Proposes a "War Against Forest Fires"

 

August 22, 2002--In a sweeping new policy unveiled yesterday, George Double U proposed a dramatic and sweeping solution to the problem of forest fires: get rid of the forests. Hailed as "bold" and "visionary" by the National Association of Clearcutters, W's plan includes generous subsides to transform the West from a tangle of useless trees into a beautiful prairie of Bermuda and Rye Grass. "Visualize amber waves of grain stretching from sea to shining sea" said the President to an enthusiastic crowd of timber company executives.

 

In a Disassociated Depressed investigative exclusive, we've managed to uncover the transcript of the cabinet meeting that led up to the policy announcement:

 

Mrs. Gale Norton, Secretary of the Interior: Mr. President, we have a problem with forest fires.

 

W: Well, let's rid the world of fire!

 

Mrs. Norton: Mr. President, fire is one of the four elements. It would as tough to ban fire as it would be to ban air, water or earth.

 

(W sits thinking a minute, brow furrowed)

 

W: I've got it, let's rid the world of forests--then there wouldn't be any forest fires!

 

Mrs. Norton: A brilliant idea Mr. President! Consider it done! In fact, I've already got an idea for a PR campaign: Imagine a smiling Smokey the Bear with chaps and a chainsaw standing in front of a fresh clearcut. His new slogan would be "Only You Can Prevent the Spread of Dangerous Forests That Might Catch Fire."

 

W: Can we work the word "war" in there somewhere?

 

Mrs. Norton: No problem sir!

 

[ 08-23-2002, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: Uncle Tricky ]

[Off_White]

Is that your writing, Tricky? If so, have you ever considered getting a job with The Onion? You've got the style nailed pretty well.

[Uncle_Tricky]

Yeah, I am fluent in Newzspeak, Bro-Brah, Canajun, and RuralDrawl.

[Geek_the_Greek]

Geek the Greek may be a geek, and may be a greek, but his opinions do not necessarily reflect those of geeks or greeks....

I'll stick to the forestry issues, and this thread has drifted way off, so I'll just watch and drink...

 

That "remove forests" gag actually wouldn't solve the fire problem at all, though. Prairies burn even more often than forests!

[csd345]

Alien,

 

For just over 100 years the topic of how to manage forests in this country has been hotly debated. I am not going to dive too far into your thoughts, as your mind is already made up... However, your threads were remarkably ignorant I had to say something.

 

You are right, there are big differences in public and private forestry....

 

Weyerhauser may be a good COMPANY, and they do need to protect their INVESTMENT. It is a business, like all others, whose objective is to make a profit. While I am not opposed to recycling programs and other "green" incentives, I am not misled in thinking that these programs necessarily reflect good environmental stewardship. They a however, good business practices.

 

I am not 100% happy with management of federal lands either, but your limited arguement in favor of private forestry just seems weak.

 

It is a political nightmare to manage forests these days. (BTW, there are loads of regs that apply to federal lands too--at the very least, the NWFP marks one of the first/recent good efforts at using ecosystem science as a management directive. And while there are still limitations to this plan, it's progress in the right direction...AND it was drafted by scientists who worked for the govt AND Weyerhauser and other organizations.)

 

But c'mon, Weyerhauser has a recyclying program??? McDonalds has a recycling program. It's called McRecycle, but does this qualify McDonalds as a good thing?? At the very least it helps their image, but I wouldn't call them environmental stewards for including this in their advertising campaign. (http://grn.com/library/position.htm)

 

Anyway, without sounding too idealistic, I'd like to think there are still good people working in science and management (on federal and private lands.)

 

You don't contribute to solutions if you just sit around in apathy and bitch at everyone else...

[ILuvAliens]

My mind is not made up. My statement still stands. I made one comment about public vs private land management, it was broader based then just forestry. I feel it is true. Ignorant...quite a jump, but whatever. I am also not misled into thinking green incentitives are good environmental stewardship. It added to my point, I feel, about private companies and their environmental practices as opposed to gov owned lands. And of coarse.. McRecycle doesn't make McDonalds a good thing. However, I think it is a good thing even if it's only in our minds that it is helping. It shows some sort of hope/caring towards fixing it all.

 

quote:

---

You don't contribute to solutions if you just sit around in apathy and bitch at everyone else...

---

quote:

---

Alien, are you teaching Beavis and Butthead forestry 101?! Gimme a break..

---

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by iain:

Unfortunately Ralph Nadar, while extremely intelligent and thoughtful, is not "presidential material" in the traditional sense. He just doesn't have the requisite stage presence and slick self-promotional material. It is a shame.

---

Nader is also a socialist, at heart, who wants the government to control and regulate ALL industry. His stand doesn't sound anything like what our country was founded on (and worse than we have now). I agree with MtnGoat - more liberty and personal responsibility and less governmental intrusion. Ayn Rand's writing is very refreshing.

 

To clarify, Ralph Nader was removed from the audience of debate because he was trying to enter using someone else's credential.

 

Greg W

[MtnGoat]

"Was my jab meant as a dismissal? Not entirely, yet I will admit to considerable frustrations with what I see in their/your arguments."

 

Good enough, thanks for clarifying. Even though we disagree, I'm glad we can kick the tires a bit without calling each other names as happens so often. Civil discourse is the most basic element of caring, isn't it?

 

"It's mainly the assumptions about the "evils" of "human nature", and how it's best to accept them and work accordingly. It's a bit cynical, if you ask me."

 

For me, I don't see it as cynical, because it's like gravity, it just is. Admitting gravity is real isn't cynical, for example.

 

Happening to note that humans have not perceptibly altered their personal behavior in terms of day to day wants, needs, treacheries, deceptions, goals, etc in thousands of years *regardless* of wether they hold car keys or the reigns of a horse is merely another such observation to me. Read ancient history and you see the same motivations, good people, bad people, love, lust, altruism, theft, patience, violence, love of children, irrpressible animal rage, non materialism, greed, etc.

 

Thinking *anyone* can reshape human behavior at these elemental levels just seems extremely arrogant to me. No matter what technology, the same forces reassert themselves again and again. Why not take this into account and plan for it, and design systems for how people *are*, that both protect individuals but sponsor cooperative growth? People do *not* need to be forced to cooperate, it's benefits are self evident *when* it's consensual, IMO. Do I not appear to share the same mindset with you, with respect to dealing with other humans on a respectful, equitable level? We share goals, but not tactics is all.

 

I submit the widespread use of coercive power to shape society creates it's own backlash in two ways:

 

1) as those who lust for power *inevitably* go where it is located, govt, . That's their drug, and we make it stronger every time we remove one more liberty from ourselves. If we decentralize, they cannot get the power because it isn't there to take.

 

2) and those being coerced, resist in every possible way. When anyone is forced to do something they do not believe in, they do the absolute minimum, and get around it in all possible ways. Why should they not? Who wants to serve what you do not support? Do you? This is the kind of recognition of human nature I was speaking of before.

 

but when you take personal action because you truly believe in something, it propogates through *all* your actions. You don't dodge, you seek. you don't obstruct, you create and seek new ways to help. Changing the paradigm from coercion and punishment, to choice and creation unleashes human talent in incredible ways.

 

"This happen sall the time; it's part of living with other human beings."

 

certainly is. The question is, to what degree? Do you have a vision for where the amount of coercion you are willing to support meets some boundary, or do you support it all until some end goal is met, like "no one is hungry"?

 

"we all do things we don't necessarily agree with, yet we have collectively agreed upon certain rules."

 

We need to define what a collective is, and how a collective justifies coercion, IMO. I see a collective as any body of people, and the sum of personal, *individual* choices as being a collective choice. Your take?

 

"If we find those rules unfair/unjust, we can work to change them."

 

I find many of the rules unjust, not because of the content of the rules, but that their imposition for *any* reason, by *anyone*, is unjust, so we have an elemental difference here.

 

"it sounds as though through your volunteer efforts, you engage in this action quite a bit."

 

I wish I could do more, but I try to walk the talk. How can I be a good example if I don't provide one?

 

**************

 

"Sexy - Mises (one of Libertarianism 20th century founding fathers and one of Mtgoats fav orgs namesake) and Rand while often thrown into the same camp. They are in fact not the same. In fact Mises is well known for his contemptuous ridculing of her philosophy to her face at a dinner party."

 

that's hilarious! I'll say one thing, libertarian types, being naturally independently minded, can really get into some dust ups! Where can I read more about this?

 

Like anyone else, I'm a synthesist. Mises has some groundbreaking work, and Rand, for all Mises critiques, also provides some eloquent defenses of individual liberty as the only true human right.

 

[ 08-23-2002, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

[sexual_chocolate]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg W:

quote:

---

Originally posted by iain:

Unfortunately Ralph Nadar, while extremely intelligent and thoughtful, is not "presidential material" in the traditional sense. He just doesn't have the requisite stage presence and slick self-promotional material. It is a shame.

---

Nader is also a socialist, at heart, who wants the government to control and regulate ALL industry. His stand doesn't sound anything like what our country was founded on (and worse than we have now). I agree with MtnGoat - more liberty and personal responsibility and less governmental intrusion. Ayn Rand's writing is very refreshing.

 

To clarify, Ralph Nader was removed from the audience of debate because he was trying to enter using someone else's credential.

 

Greg W

---

Yes, Ralph Nader seems to espouse many noble qualities of socialism, akin to some European and Canadian customs, and, suffice it to say, more industry regulation is needed, as has so amply been proven following the dereg and privatization scandals of the last ten years. The chickens have come home to roost!

 

Also, to FURTHER clarify, the debate committee's rules have a rather high bar for entry: 20% in the current polls for qualification? Am I right on the number? Rather egregious, if you ask me....

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

True that Nader may not be the 100% best solution. In the Doctor's opinion, though, much of his appeal lies in the fact that he's largely opposed to most, if not all, of the major problems that plague our system as it stands.

 

The fact that he was shut out from actually debating is indicative of the other parties' (and their corporate backers') fear of what kind of change a third party would bring, and is in turn indicative of whose interests they are truly looking out for.

 

Interesting bit about why the Nade' was kicked out for even watching the debates. DFA hadn't heard that side of the story; but of course he has to wonder if it's true, and also why he had to use someone else's creds to get in in the first place?

[sk]

my nose is now bleeding. how dare you make me think this hard

[Peter_Puget]

Not sure where I read that. Some tid bit somewhere. But anyone want to read a wonderfull short book expounding on some basic Mises I would suggest Entrepreneurship by Israel Kirzner. Name and author might be off a bit.

[MtnGoat]

"Ralph Nader seems to espouse many noble qualities of socialism, akin to some European and Canadian customs"

 

what's noble about imposing a secular religion on people and making them serve it? Who decided all humans should serve the same end goals, and that our fellows are just tools to be used in someone elses pursuit of *their* vision of society?

 

I see noble qualities when people take *personal* actions, at *personal* cost, to make changes they believe in. I don't see a whole lot noble about assuming everyone around you will not only pay for, but be forced to serve someone else's specific ends. helping people when you have a gun to your head isn't noble, because there's no choice involved.

 

"and, suffice it to say, more industry regulation is needed, as has so amply been proven following the dereg and privatization scandals of the last ten years."

 

what, scandals don't happen in regulated industries? scandals don't happen in govt and effect millions of people forced to comply?

[sexual_chocolate]

All Nader does is espouse the same ideals that the democratic party USED to espouse, before the entire country's shift to the right, during the Reagan years.

[MtnGoat]

you mean dems used to be even *more* socialist? wow!

[sexual_chocolate]

Aw, come on now. You know better. You can barely differentiate between reps and dems now....pro capital punishment, corporate welfare, welfare reform, free trade, etc. etc.

 

I wonder if you have a bit of an antiquated ie. McCarthy-inspired (Ayn Rand inspired) view of Socialism? It seems to me that most all Europeans and Canadians I have met hold their countries' socialistic structures in high esteem, due to the positives of a more level playing field (with its attendant securities).

[Anna]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Uncle Tricky:

From the Disassociated Depressed:

 

George Double U Bush Proposes a "War Against Forest Fires"

 

---

BRILLIANT AND HILARIOUS!

[allison]

Disagreee with his politics, wouldn't pitch a tent within 50' of him due to something that sounds like snoring only louder....BUT.....

 

Here's to MtnGoat for his incomparable abilities as a buddy for outdoor pursuits

 

[ 08-26-2002, 07:10 AM: Message edited by: allison ]

[allthumbs]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MtnGoat:

Who are the people? If so many people believe, and want, all the stuff activists claim they do, and *act* on it,why isn't society different *now*?

---

That about sums it up. I looked at the pictures DFA posted of the "protest". Just looks like a gathering of college punks to me. Don't these people have jobs? HooRaa!!

[Dru]

Muir on Saturday

 

Godzilla

 

[tread_tramp]

The fodder that fuels the Spray Lords fires.

[greghinemeyer]

from the looks of all the masks that they are wearing, they must be so hideously disfigured that no one would hire them