On the town with GWB, AKA democracy in action

[MtnGoat]

there's also the issue of what is irresponsible use, by definition. Given modern practices to bond and clean up sites, enforced and observed, I consider mining perfectly responsible.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

What about strip-mining, and that shit where they level mountains (well, hills probably) to get at whatever they're getting at? How responsible is that? The Doctor doubts anyone would consider that a responsible way of gathering minerals.

[MtnGoat]

"What about strip-mining, and that shit where they level mountains (well, hills probably) to get at whatever they're getting at? How responsible is that? The Doctor doubts anyone would consider that a responsible way of gathering minerals."

 

Here to allay your doubt, stand I. Strip mining, while not the most esthetic way of doing things, is nonetheless often the most efficient.

 

Large ore bodies which are differentiated through the host rock instead of concentrated in hot spots, are most effectively mined taking all the rock, since there are often not specifically concentrated areas where the ore is denser than others.

 

Deposits known as "massive suphides" (ancient hotspring sites on a large scale, essentially) contain precious metals dispersed through the entire ore body. Where they are deep enough (and rich enough) to force tunneling to get them, they may be tunnel mined, but where near the surface, it is simply more efficient to take it all.

 

Many other deposits of minerals are likewise naturally oriented towards strip mining, dependingn on condition, orientation with respect to the surface, and the concentration of the target within the host rock. Saying strip mining is not responsible in all cases is to ignore the physical realities of the huge range of variations found in nature which are dependent on the specifics of each case.

 

I plead guilty to being part of the evil earth rapists, I spent 5 years as as geotech for various mining outfits and know a bit about what it takes to get this stuff out of the ground. Not everything, I'm no expert, but I do know more than your man in the street.

 

I'm not going to claim strip mining has always been responsibly done, no, but I will claim it is not simply irresponsible in all cases, either.

[MtnGoat]

"pay your taxes and participate as best you can in our political system"

 

That is what I am doing, and at the same time participating by asking that people consider

 

- if the current paradigm for handing over control and then complaining about it's unavoidable abuse

 

- of fancying one's own goals as somehow higher than those of other free citizens

 

- of enabling people to escape from acting on their own stated morals, is one that actually is the best.

 

"I bet there are a lot of things that this great nation of ours is doing with your money that you approve of, are there not? "

 

Heck yes. Infrastructure issues for one thing, maintaing a legal structure, police force, rule of law. The closer an issue gets to social coercion for someones vision of a specific way in which people "ought" to be or act, the more I disagree, even if I agree with the goal desired. It's the method I find self defeating.

 

"If you believe in public services, whether they be simply the basic utilities like water, sewer and police protection, or if you are "socialistic" as the term is being used here and believe in welfare and public healthcare, you have to pay for it."

 

certainly, and i believe I've addressed the former concerns in my reply above, as well as the latter. I have no issues whatsoever with one's secular religious views of feeling they would like to contribute to health care for their fellow man, only that their own personal views on this are not binding on someone else, nor should they be. We are not tools to be used for someone elses end goals, basically.

 

"I have always advocated participation to the greatest extent that one can"

 

A laudable point we both agree with, at least we see eye to eye on something!

 

"people participate in our civil and political processes - at least if the participatns are good guys (you conservatives and libertarians cause all the trouble)."

 

I think you may be accidentally sidestepping one of my points or I have not made it clear. The other issue that exists IMO is not how "good" a public servant is, even absent fraud or bribery, but that it is impossible for anyone to evaluate "good" for someone else regardless of how pure the actions and intents of someone making decisions for millions of others. For acts with a scientific basis, such things can be quantified using methods visible and testable by any who cares to do so. But for acts and goals involving social issues, these "goods" are entirely subjective *regardless* of the intent, good or bad, of a public official.

 

Each persons "good" is knowable only to *them*.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

"About that whole ELF thing. Read some Ed Abbey. I'm not a member nor ever will be. I consider myself a pretty much law abiding citizen. But I'm GLAD somebody is out there putting their ass on the line throwing a monkeywrench in the machinery of "progress." Corporate rape of natural resources has gone on long enough. Writing letters to Congressmen or having peaceful demonstrations sometimes just doesn't get it done. The corporate rape continues. Sometimes the George Haydukes of the world have to fight back in a way that actually accomplishes something."

 

HAYDUKE!

HAYDUKE!

HAYDUKE!

HAYDUKE!

HAYDUKE!

[MtnGoat]

"Corporate rape of natural resources has gone on long enough. Writing letters to Congressmen or having peaceful demonstrations sometimes just doesn't get it done. The corporate rape continues."

 

That's because someone, somewhere, keeps using what they claim shouldn't be used and people shouldn't want.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MtnGoat:

"Corporate rape of natural resources has gone on long enough. Writing letters to Congressmen or having peaceful demonstrations sometimes just doesn't get it done. The corporate rape continues."

 

That's because someone, somewhere, keeps using what they claim shouldn't be used and people shouldn't want.

---

That's part of the problem, yeah. But then there's the part wherein the company execs need to be able to afford gold toothbrushes and golf tees, and maybe it's cheaper to strip mine a mountain down to a molehill and skip out on cleaning up the toxic mine tailings, and hey, suddenly they're part of the problem, too! A little corporate accountability could go a long way.

[Uncle_Tricky]

Well, usually a thread like this should be avoided like Dick Cheney (the portly crooked meta-smirking Rasputin of this administration) avoids a third helping of fatty baby-back pork ribs for fear that the shiny stent in his black heart will explode from his chest like a tiny silver arrow of justice. But in this case I can resist no longer, or I will light myself on fire and run through my neighborhood shrieking until my corporeal embers are snuffed by the nearest lawn sprinkler.

 

The Bush Admin Part Deux is desperate to leverage the political capital of 9/11 into some sort of war that will distract the public from the ongoing flourescent ekonomik implosion. W is in way over his head. When I see him in front of the cameras, I'm reminded of the glazed look of sucrose stoned two-year old loosed on a 12-pack of Ding-Dongs. Except it's power instead of empty calories.

 

The calculations made vis a vis our one note war rhetoric and staunch unilaterism are mutiple, but commonly rooted in the apparent Republican desire to exploit our country's tragedy as a window of opportunity. An opportunity to cram their freedom destroying agenda down our throats. In record time if possible.

 

Without 9-11, the political focus in this country would be on the economy and corporate scandal. The administration was well aware that they were already in position to get spun down the Hill soon as a competent Democrat (a rare species indeed) took to the fight. When 9-11 happened the trusty grand ol' cloak of foreign policy and the open-ended "war on terrorism" became the focus of the administration, thereby allowing the age-old right-wing business class ideologues to fatten their wallets while annihilating our constitution. A two-fer!

 

As long The Ashcroft Yemeni Dance Team and Saddam the Strawman keep us en pointe, the departments of interior, treasury, commerce, and transportation, along with Cristie Todd Whitman at EPA (rumor has it she drives a 1975 Lincoln Continental with mink interior to work) can roll up their sleeves and get down to the real business of cleaning our country's turkey.

 

Nixon parlayed our miseries in Southeast Asia into a couple elections. Bush Part One had the war thing down too well.... the Hundred Hour Ground War was not quite juiced at the proper pace to assure reelection and forswear the homeland economic puzzle. The ambiguousness of the current never-to-end "war" is intentional and actively being massaged to pay dividends in this and future election cycles.

 

Bush Part Deux is sworn to avoid his father's mistakes. This war on terrorism is just the latest square peg being made to fit in the Republicans' round hole. All politicians want to be reelected, and most want to achieve "good" while they're there. But the Republicans' mission is hard to figure as more than anything but a stupid bully's marriage to a tired ideology of "economic freedom", "moral fascism", and "symbolic disingenousness".

 

And I foolishly thot the Demogoguecrats were the party of big, intrusive government! In the last 12 months, the Republibootlickers have expanded the federal budget, federal power and eroded the Bill of Rights to such an extent that Bill Clinton is turning green with envy.

 

Oh no, them Dems are no choir-boys--I'll save my Democrat rant for later--but at least when they're hypocritical and disingenuous it seems directed at their political opponents, and not at the American People and the world at large.

 

As far as W goes, it's obvious he is lacking of the most basic cognitive abilities that we should expect, at a bare minimum, from our figureheads and ultimate decision makers. In the aftermath of 9-11 Bush pretty much got a free pass.

 

Everyone was so superfreaked and just goddamn thankful that it wasn't their pasty-white ass in a cubicle when a fuel-packed airliner showed up in their in-box that there's actually an Era of Good Feeling going on.

 

But bottom-line: while we denizens of CC.com ain't the product of no genius factory, toss out a couple select morons and I like our chances against the whole stagnant Bush gene pool.

 

[ 08-31-2002, 07:14 AM: Message edited by: Uncle Tricky ]

[Fence_Sitter]

"He finally looked away, seemed uncomfortable and somehow touched. Beneath the stormtrooper gear, some of these people must be uneasy, must be in some way aware that they are supporting something wrong, something inhuman and destructive. " these granolas make me sick... everything that does not embrace what they stand for is "inhuman and destructive" big fucking deal some phis listenin hippie stared down a cop that could do nothing but stare back...lets see her reaction while looking at a 70 ft whipper protected by a blue alien... why does his shit even get any attention? it is just "pseudo-conflict" these people have such boring lives they need to pretend they are doing soemthing great and brave, but really they look like a bunch of freaks. i have an idea! do something about it instead of jsut bitching about it with 500 of you clostest hippie friends... if you hippies are so into politics...why dont you run for office...dumbasses oh and HIPPIES SMELL!

[Uncle_Tricky]

Q. How many Libertarians does it take to change a light bulb?

 

A. None, the market will take care of it.

 

 

[ 08-31-2002, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: Uncle Tricky ]

[Fairweather]

www.cdfe.org/daschle_logging.htm

 

....now you'll tell me how its BOTH Republicans AND Democrats that you decry!

 

.....only I never seem to hear the outrage here when Dems do it. Just constant whining about "Cheyney"... "the administration"..."The Bushies"...blah, blah, blah, blah.

 

Five years ago it was the right-wingers crying about government "jack-booted thugs". Now it is the lefties saying the exact same thing. You hypocrites.

[Uncle_Tricky]

Yeah, gotta agree with you there. Seems nowadays everybody likes jackbooted thugs, as long as they are theirs!

 

So fairweather, how would you rate W's progress on the war on the bill o rights so far?

 

(I think Karan Hughes talked him out of calling it that publicly: "you know George, we don't necessarily need to append a "war on" to every public policy...")

[Uncle_Tricky]

PS. I'm outraged at the democrats. Please tabulate this comment under the "whining/crying/outraged" about the democrats column on your spreadsheet for future reference.

[MtnGoat]

Now how is it some folks are posting pics and I cannot? I tried this syntax:

 

<img src="http://reason.com/0107/b3.jpg" alt="- " >

 

and no can do. Yet it's what shows when I check the source for this page and Tricky's post. I don't get it.

 

[ 09-09-2002, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

[Fairweather]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Uncle Tricky:

Yeah, gotta agree with you there. Seems nowadays everybody likes jackbooted thugs, as long as they are theirs!

 

So fairweather, how would you rate W's progress on the war on the bill o rights so far?

 

(I think Karan Hughes talked him out of calling it that publicly: "you know George, we don't necessarily need to append a "war on" to every public policy...")

---

Actually, I'm not really concerned at all. I think the nanny liberals who want to ban talk radio as "hate speech", or want to force me to wear a bicycle helmet or a seatbelt "for my own protection" are more of a threat to my personal liberty than a justice department looking to deport/detain non-citizens.

 

I think the "war on" thing started with LBJ's "war on poverty". It may even go back farther than that.

 

[ 09-10-2002, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

[Winter]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fairweather:

www.cdfe.org/daschle_logging.htm

 

....now you'll tell me how its BOTH Republicans AND Democrats that you decry!

 

.....only I never seem to hear the outrage here when Dems do it. Just constant whining about "Cheyney"... "the administration"..."The Bushies"...blah, blah, blah, blah.

 

Five years ago it was the right-wingers crying about government "jack-booted thugs". Now it is the lefties saying the exact same thing. You hypocrites.

---

I have to shed a little light on FW's oft-cited cause celebre for the tree-cutting powers that be. Daschle tried to work out an agreement between enviros and industry over how best to manage fire risk on our public lands (long before this summer's fire season). Biodiversity Conservation Alliance backed out, because they thought the deal was bad for forest health. Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society backed the deal. Daschle slipped it into an appropriations bill. Daschle certainly did not do the forests a favor in introducing the legislation, because now GW wants to "thin" 28 million acres of national forest. He did, however, at least attempt to engage the environmental community and build consensys on how best to IMPROVE forest health.

 

As for the "jack-booted thugs" comment, think about it. You'll find more and more often that those that leaning to the far right and far left will share positions: free trade, corporate welfare, campaign reform, etc etc. Why?

 

Because corporations have captured government, plain and simple. If you ain't a corporate interest, then the design of our electoral system places you at a disadvantage. It ain't hypocrytical to share that belief with the disenfranchised at the other end of the political spectrum.

 

Oh yeah ... and one more thing. Its clear from your last post that seatbelts and radio programs ARE the greatest threat to your personal liberty. Too bad all the other individuals 'round these parts don't enjoy your privileged existence. Thankfully some folks can empathize with the less fortunate even though they don't face the same challenges ... chalk it up to human nature I guess.

 

[ 09-10-2002, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: Winter ]

[Fairweather]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Winter:

.

.

Oh yeah ... and one more thing. Its clear from your last post that seatbelts and radio programs ARE the greatest threat to your personal liberty. Too bad all the other individuals 'round these parts don't enjoy your privileged existence. Thankfully some folks can empathize with the less fortunate even though they don't face the same challenges ... chalk it up to human nature I guess.[/QB]

---

??? So now owning a car (with a seatbelt) and a radio is a "priveleged existence" in your world? I would say that most lawyers like yourself live a VERY priveleged existence in this country. Did I miss something, or are you just spoutin' off again?

 

By the way Winter, isn't the Trial Lawers Association one of the biggest lobbying groups in Washington D.C.? ....Or is it just those "other" special interests (ya know; corporations, NRA, etc) that have too much political clout?

 

For an attorney your arguments are consistently weak.

 

[ 09-10-2002, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

[MtnGoat]

"Thankfully some folks can empathize with the less fortunate even though they don't face the same challenges "

 

I think most of us empathize with the less fortunate, but only a subset insists their self described "caring" must involve the use of others lives, and resources, at gunpoint. There's nothing cheaper to do than expressing "empathy" using someone *elses* life and resources, regardless of how much you personally donate. Or not.

[Winter]

FW - Mostly I was just spouting off again as usual. I admit I'm full of garbage. But this trash talker seems to think that if your biggest concerns over personal liberty involve seat belts and radio, then you've got it pretty good right now. That makes you pretty damn fortunate in relation to immigrants, blacks, hispanics, arabs, tree-sitters, gays, homeless, crack babies, and sport climbers (sorry DFA). Equal rights for bolt clippers!! Go with the Flow, FW. It ain't noble, but it is easy.

[Fairweather]

Winter,

 

even though I hate your politics, I'm still with you on the Cooper Spur thing. I've written letters.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Dammit! Always with the double posts these days!

 

[ 09-12-2002, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Dr Flash Amazing ]

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Winter:

FW - Mostly I was just spouting off again as usual. I admit I'm full of garbage. But this trash talker seems to think that if your biggest concerns over personal liberty involve seat belts and radio, then you've got it pretty good right now. That makes you pretty damn fortunate in relation to immigrants, blacks, hispanics, arabs, tree-sitters, gays, homeless, crack babies, and sport climbers (sorry DFA). Equal rights for bolt clippers!! Go with the Flow, FW. It ain't noble, but it is easy.

---

Doctor Flash Amazing does not want your stinky-like-polypropylene-after-three-weeks-in-the-backcountry alpine apology! Dr. Flash Amazing is PROUD of his sport climbing heritage, and is PROUD to be a sport climber today!

 

PROUD!

 

Viva escalando desportivo!

[j_b]

MtnGoat writes: "The *want* drives the train, because the want creates the value for something others will try to provide. IMO you cannot blame anyone but the consumer. You can blame the provider for doing things in a way you may not like, sure, but they can't do that without a market anyway."

 

that would be true if we lived in a vacuum and our wants were innate to being on this earth. But we all know that individuals living in a culture without contact or knowledge of the modern industrialized world have very different wants from our own (besides the basic ones). This points to our wants being the result of culture. I don't need to tell you what generates the dominant culture.

[Winter]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fairweather:

Winter,

 

even though I hate your politics, I'm still with you on the Cooper Spur thing. I've written letters.

---

And your support (of Cooper Spur) is appreciated. Send me the letters you wrote, because I would be interested in seeing them.

[MtnGoat]

"that would be true if we lived in a vacuum and our wants were innate to being on this earth." '

 

I agree that one's wants are influenced by culture, but this doesn't mean those wants, however derived, are not what creates a market to fulfill them. If you want firewood or a goat, you want it for your own reasons influenced by culture, and someone will be willing to trade you one.

 

"I don't need to tell you what generates the dominant culture."

 

Sure you do! What generates it?