2008 Thoughts from The Australian

[john5746]

Good one John.....I wonder if Jesus was Pro choice.

 

Maybe he would bomb abortion clinics, I don't know. Maybe he would be pro-gun, pro military, pro capitalist. My point for bringing it up is 'christian' values are not a part of any political group.

[crapistan]

I apologize for some angry and poorly thought out comments by fellow rightwingers. Although conclusions have been jumped to, some on the left are guilty of such offenses. I don't expect a diplomatic apology, however those on the left who really believe in enlightened debate would gain respect to do so.

 

Note to others who believe in conservative concepts: Your short-sighted comments are accomplishing the opposite of what you may wish to achieve. Try a well thought out, objective, reasonable, and most importantly DIPLOMATIC approach to debates. Accomplishing this will cause our enemies to spew the irate, illogical, radical, foaming at the mouth, comments that your being scolded for.

[crapistan]

In the long run not being environmentally responsible will cost money and jobs.

 

Chopping down forests without replanting' date=' denuding soils and polluting water may save some money and maximise income immediately, but will end up costing jobs and income.[/quote']

 

Despite the common (and false) belief that big corporations are the enemy of "mother nature", major corporations are practicing ecology with far greater progress than the federal and state governments. (Has anything the government done been good? As in not cause more problems than it fixed?)

 

I've never seen clear cutting in Wisconsin (Lived here all 21 years), more land is covered by trees than at any point in the post Wisconsin Glacial period. All the paper lands here are selectively cut and privately managed.

 

I worked at a paper mill in Green Bay recently, they have their own wastewater facility and extensively use recycling methods.

 

The Fox River cleanup program is being poorly handled by the DNR. It was found that a certain bacteria would consume all the PCB contamination. Instead of this cheap and effective solution, the DNR opts to go with an expensive dredging program involving the burial of contamiated river deposits with the hope that the clay base of NE Wisconsin will prevent PCBs from draining into the water table...

 

Do I even have to mention the policies of California's forest management? Can they really be doing a good job if every year record fires occur?

 

Next time one thinks the government does a good job of governing, go to the DMV.

 

The only thing the Feds have proven to be good at is creating a powerful military (at least when its in the agenda of policy makers)...

[Sayonara]

Accomplishing this will cause our enemies to spew the irate, illogical, radical, foaming at the mouth, comments that your being scolded for.

This unhelpful brand of deliberate self-distinction is best discouraged, not encouraged. "Lefty, righty, friend, enemy" is a primitive view.

 

 

I've never seen clear cutting in Wisconsin (Lived here all 21 years), more land is covered by trees than at any point in the post Wisconsin Glacial period. All the paper lands here are selectively cut and privately managed.

Imagine that. Imagine there being more trees there now than after a glacial period. How extraordinary.

 

 

Do I even have to mention the policies of California's forest management? Can they really be doing a good job if every year record fires occur?

When you say "record", do you mean that the fires are getting bigger or more widespread year-on-year, or that ever-more means are made available to deal with them? Or is that just a word that got thrown in to make forest fires sound unusual in some way?

[Douglas]

Jesus was a liberal. Had all these wierd ideas about loving everyone, forgetting about monetary things, healing the sick, caring for the poor, etc. That is why he was crucified by the conservatives.

No, Jesus was a conservative, he had these wierd ideas that an 8 month fetus should be allowed to be born, that a man should work for his family, tax free, that the Philistines (terrorists) should be killed. That is why he was crucified by the liberals.

[john5746]

No, Jesus was a conservative, he had these wierd ideas that an 8 month fetus should be allowed to be born, that a man should work for his family, tax free, that the Philistines (terrorists) should be killed. That is why he was crucified by the liberals.

 

That's a good one! Well, if he exists and comes back, I'm sure he won't be American and could care less about politics! Which is kind of the point.

 

McCain for President 2008. If the republican party hasn't screwed itself up by then!

[Douglas]

That's a good one! Well' date=' if he exists and comes back, I'm sure he won't be American and could care less about politics! Which is kind of the point.

 

McCain for President 2008. If the republican party hasn't screwed itself up by then![/quote']

Yeah, I'd vote for McCain.

[Sayonara]

Yeah, I'd vote for McCain.

As long as by 2008 he isn't running with the flagship policy "throw all children into a chasm", or just because he's a Republican you quite like? What if a better one comes along before then?

 

What happens if a Democrat comes along who'd clearly make a better president all around?

[crapistan]

This unhelpful brand of deliberate self-distinction is best discouraged, not encouraged. "Lefty, righty, friend, enemy" is a primitive view.

How else would you prefer to catagorize? On the major issues there are polarized views held in the two traditional modes of political thought.

 

How would you define yourself? Enlightened? Progressive? Free Thinking? What is the criteria for such a label? What so wrong about me calling the same thing something different? If labels are an issue, why do we have language? Perhaps to convey general ideas and information? I know what a shoe is, does someone really need to tell me what exactly a shoe is composed of? With a set of blueprints? And a definition from a dictionary? Not really...

 

I for one will continue with "Primitive" labels, it does a pretty darn good job of drawing a line between myself and my "Enemies". Doing away with generalized labels would be like trying to fight a guerrilla war against half the nation.

 

 

 

Imagine that. Imagine there being more trees there now than after a glacial period. How extraordinary.

I am simply making the observation that if rampant destruction of the enviornment by big corporations were true, My statement would be false. (Paper and lumber are HUGE industries in WI) Also consider my lack of immediate information concerning pre ice age tree populations in Wisconsin. Thus I could not make a statement claiming there were more trees before the last ice age.

 

 

 

When you say "record", do you mean that the fires are getting bigger or more widespread year-on-year, or that ever-more means are made available to deal with them? Or is that just a word that got thrown in to make forest fires sound unusual in some way?

 

Forest fires that are of record sizes? Year after year? Very unusual. That is after all, what I was saying.

 

Policies of extinguishing natural fires cause a build up of combustible material.

 

There is no such policy of selective cutting either. It is like saying the whole forest must die because we cannot sleep at night (In our wooden houses) if one tree dies at our hands.

 

Fire lanes? Whats that?

 

 

 

Really now, only taking only exerpts from my posts is not very honest (Yes, I am scolding your values and morality). It is not that difficult to demonize someone that way. Just ask Michael Moore. (AKA "Mr. Cut n' Paste)

[crapistan]

thats wrong' date=' im a liberal and i drive a dodge ram pickup truck. ahh, just like a shortsighted conservative radical to go generalizing...i've put up with a year and a half of being called a liberal like its a sin. its time for conservatives to grow up and get a little intelligence in that thing called a brain.

conservative viewpoint consists of

-if I dont have the ultimate power, then i'll shoot you, so i CAN have the ultimate power.

and thats about it. can't blame em, all they do is shoot animals and then tell people that they should worship god because its right....thou shall not kill. america is saturated with hypocracy. i can't take it anymore.[/quote']

 

What? I don't understand... My logic meter is reading zero! How can you complain about generalizations then make one?

 

Liberalism? Yeah its a sin, its also a mental disease. Oh great, the mens rea dilemma !

[Tetrahedrite]

Despite the common (and false) belief that big corporations are the enemy of "mother nature", major corporations are practicing ecology with far greater progress than the federal and state governments. (Has anything the government done been good? As in not cause more problems than it fixed?)

 

Give us all a break!! You must be living in lala land! To say that big corporations care about the environment is just wishful thinking. Spending money on the environment lowers their profits, so unless they get some type of consumer loyalty due to their spending, it aint gunna happen. What you will find is that most environmental protection measures are designed and enforced by the GOVERNMENT and if the companies had a choice they wouldn't follow them.

 

I've never seen clear cutting in Wisconsin (Lived here all 21 years)' date=' more land is covered by trees than at any point in the post Wisconsin Glacial period. All the paper lands here are selectively cut and privately managed.

[/quote']

 

Are you asking us to believe that the forestry industry has not caused any reduction in the number of trees?

 

 

I worked at a paper mill in Green Bay recently, they have their own wastewater facility and extensively use recycling methods.

 

Isn't recycling the water just cheaper? ie more profits

 

Next time one thinks the government does a good job of governing' date=' go to the DMV.

 

The only thing the Feds have proven to be good at is creating a powerful military (at least when its in the agenda of policy makers)...[/quote']

 

From what you are saying it sounds like you would have businesses run everything. There is a major difference between corporations and the government. The corporation's main concern will always be its bottom line, where as a government main concern should be for the wellbeing of its citizens. The two are not compatable. The USA is going towards this end, where everything will be run for a profit (even your welfare system, which I find absolutely moronic). Assuming this horrible trend doesn't find its way across the pacific to Australia, I'll be sitting back laughing when the US crashes and burns.

[john5746]

As long as by 2008 he isn't running with the flagship policy "throw all children into a chasm"' date=' or just because he's a Republican you quite like? What if a better one comes along before then?

 

What happens if a Democrat comes along who'd clearly make a better president all around?[/quote']

 

I like McCain because he is a moderate. He also will fight for/against an issue regardless of who is backing it. He is a politician, no doubt, but most of the time he is trustworthy. I had concerns at one time that he might not be diplomatic enough, and this may be a concern in 2008. He can't be any worse than Dubya.

 

If a moderate Democrat comes around, I would vote for them also.

[Skye]

It's a funny situation that no matter what political environment you're in, if you're considered to be smack bang in the middle of it, you're morally virtuous, but in most other political environments those moderates would be considered crackpot extremists.

[john5746]

Good point. I don't consider myself morally superior to those farther on the right or left. I am pro-choice for example. I understand why many are against it. Simply my opinions, that is all.

[Sayonara]

How else would you prefer to catagorize? On the major issues there are polarized views held in the two traditional modes of political thought.

I prefer not to categorise people since it is necessarily and irreparably arbitrary, completely open to abuse, and utterly subjective.

 

You can stick people in boxes all you like, but every single person in that box will have characteristics or beliefs that are not typical of the population of the box. You end up making so many categories that you may as well deal with people on an individual basis. Hence, labelling people is a primitive means of organising a political argument.

 

This is why we discuss views, and not people.

 

 

How would you define yourself? Enlightened? Progressive? Free Thinking? What is the criteria for such a label?

I don't.

 

I am me. I exist. I do as I do, because it seems right based on the information available.

 

I do not constrain my thoughts or actions based on any arbitrary set of criteria that exist only in someone else's head, and I certainly don't constrain them based on what other people decide to openly or privately label me.

 

 

What so wrong about me calling the same thing something different? If labels are an issue, why do we have language? Perhaps to convey general ideas and information? I know what a shoe is, does someone really need to tell me what exactly a shoe is composed of? With a set of blueprints? And a definition from a dictionary? Not really...

What is wrong is that you are not using the attributes of the people to decide on a label - you are instead marginalising their positions by bundling them into a generic category and sticking a label on them, based on your interpretation of "where they stand" relative to your views.

 

That is not a sophisticated means of reference and has no value in a discussion other than to allow opportunities to blur distinctions and/or get sweeping generalisations under the radar.

 

 

I for one will continue with "Primitive" labels, it does a pretty darn good job of drawing a line between myself and my "Enemies". Doing away with generalized labels would be like trying to fight a guerrilla war against half the nation.

Nonsense. Other people have been doing it for centuries* so I really don't see that it can be that difficult.

 

* not individuals, obviously. They generally don't live that long.

 

I am simply making the observation that if rampant destruction of the enviornment by big corporations were true, My statement would be false. (Paper and lumber are HUGE industries in WI) Also consider my lack of immediate information concerning pre ice age tree populations in Wisconsin. Thus I could not make a statement claiming there were more trees before the last ice age.

None of that affects the fact that you said WI has more trees now than after the last glacial period, which is a bit like me saying "this cookie jar has more cookies in it now than it did when we finished off the last lot".

 

 

Forest fires that are of record sizes? Year after year? Very unusual. That is after all, what I was saying.

Policies of extinguishing natural fires cause a build up of combustible material.

There is no such policy of selective cutting either. It is like saying the whole forest must die because we cannot sleep at night (In our wooden houses) if one tree dies at our hands.

Fire lanes? Whats that?

Now that is more like an argument that the forest fires are mis-managed.

 

 

Really now, only taking only exerpts from my posts is not very honest (Yes, I am scolding your values and morality). It is not that difficult to demonize someone that way. Just ask Michael Moore. (AKA "Mr. Cut n' Paste)

Don't talk crap. I quoted the sections I had issues with.

 

Quoting unnecessarily is considered to be bad etiquette. It is rude - inferring indiscriminacy that can only come from not reading the quoted post properly - and wastes both database space, and the time of people reading the thread.

 

What a lame attack - "if you only quote excerpts you must be dishonest". I think you'll find that does more damage to you than to me. You know **** all about my values and morality and have about as much right to scold me as I have to ram a lawn umbrella into your eye socket.

[Aardvark]

It's a funny situation that no matter what political environment you're in, if you're considered to be smack bang in the middle of it, you're morally virtuous, but in most other political environments those moderates would be considered crackpot extremists.

 

That's an excellent point.

 

Someone at work once told me he hated all extremists in politics and supported moderates and moderation. I asked him to define moderation and he said that it was what most people agreed with.

 

Essentially a complete abdication of independent reasoning, just follow the herd.

 

Funny, yes, but not in a good way.

[crapistan]

Give us all a break!! You must be living in lala land! To say that big corporations care about the environment is just wishful thinking. Spending money on the environment lowers their profits, so unless they get some type of consumer loyalty due to their spending, it aint gunna happen. What you will find is that most environmental protection measures are designed and enforced by the GOVERNMENT and if the companies had a choice they wouldn't follow them.

 

Gee, doesn't anyone remember during the early 90's when the big consumer catch was advertising products made with recycled materials? It is actually CHEAPER to recycle than to get materials from their source. There is plenty of incentive to be stewards of the enviornment I.E. higher profits and financial security.

 

 

Are you asking us to believe that the forestry industry has not caused any reduction in the number of trees?

That is absurd to claim and it is even more absurd to accuse me of claiming it.

 

How in the world did you get THAT out of my posts? As a matter of fact, selective cutting makes way for new growth. So cutting a few trees now (Yes, oh my gosh! They killed a poor defensless tree!) would spur the growth of new trees and undergrowth. (Undergrowth that is feeding everyone's furry little friends... the same ones I brutally hunt down, murder, gut, skin, butcher, freeze, cook, and finally eat... And its lots of fun...)

 

 

 

 

Isn't recycling the water just cheaper? ie more profits

NO! Most factories are on waterfront!

 

http://www.gp.com/enviro/index.html

Georgia-Pacific has won numerous awards for their enviornmentally friendly buisness.

 

 

 

 

From what you are saying it sounds like you would have businesses run everything. There is a major difference between corporations and the government. The corporation's main concern will always be its bottom line, where as a government main concern should[/b'] be for the wellbeing of its citizens. The two are not compatable. The USA is going towards this end, where everything will be run for a profit (even your welfare system, which I find absolutely moronic). Assuming this horrible trend doesn't find its way across the pacific to Australia, I'll be sitting back laughing when the US crashes and burns.

 

Once again, I never said that. What I have said is I believe the government needs to keep there nose out of everything and let the marketplace regulate itself.

 

There really is not much different between a corporation and the government. They are both run the same way, but sometimes to different means. They are no less compatable than two corporations offering the same product.

 

The governments main concern should be to protect the intrests of it's citizens, not to govern their actions.

 

Welfare system? Moronic? Couldn't agree more! Its moronic we even have one! Its moronic to think we need one! Our free market system is too heavily regulated. In the ideal (and obtainable) system, there will be no need for charity.

 

With that said could someone who opposes me please reply with substance? I tire of simple posts with hidden assumptions, accusations, and inaccuracy in what I said or meant. (Its easy to leave out sections to change meanings. Its all about perception)

[Tetrahedrite]

Gee, doesn't anyone remember during the early 90's when the big consumer catch was advertising products made with recycled materials? It is actually CHEAPER to recycle than to get materials from their source. There is plenty of incentive to be stewards of the enviornment I.E. higher profits and financial security.

This may be so, but do you seriously believe that if you take away all environmental control from the government that businesses would engage in environmentally friendly practices. I think every educated person knows that the environment would suffer at the hands of the big corporations (AND HAVE IN THE PAST!) because they cannot make a buck from their environmental responsibilities. You assert that the DNR (which I presume stands for the Department of Natural Resources, or similar) did a bad job cleaning up PCB's from a river: How did this contamination get into the river in the first place? Did the government dump it there? Or was it pollution from businesses dumping waste either into the water or into the air!? Who is paying for this clean up? I'll bet it is the government! If a private contractor was paid to do the clean up who would pay them, the local businesses? I think not. The government would pay.

 

That is absurd to claim and it is even more absurd to accuse me of claiming it.

You did imply this ".....more land is covered by trees than at any point in the post Wisconsin Glacial period" It appears you are saying that even despite the forestry industry the number of trees in Wisconsin has increased. Or have I misunderstood?

 

How in the world did you get THAT out of my posts? As a matter of fact, selective cutting makes way for new growth. So cutting a few trees now (Yes, oh my gosh! They killed a poor defensless tree!) would spur the growth of new trees and undergrowth.

Once again you are implying that the forestry industry has caused an increase in the number of trees!

(Undergrowth that is feeding everyone's furry little friends... the same ones I brutally hunt down, murder, gut, skin, butcher, freeze, cook, and finally eat... And its lots of fun...)

You do a very good job of promoting the right-wing nut job stereotype!

 

 

There really is not much different between a corporation and the government. They are both run the same way' date=' but sometimes to different means. They are no less compatable than two corporations offering the same product.

[/quote']

As I have said before there is an enormous difference. Corporations have to make a profit.This is a fundamental truth. They will not engage in anything that doesn't make a profit. The government is free to engage in any project that will benefit its citizens, even if it makes a loss. And this is a good thing, it makes for a better society.

 

 

Welfare system? Moronic? Couldn't agree more! Its moronic we even have one! Its moronic to think we need one! Our free market system is too heavily regulated. In the ideal (and obtainable) system, there will be no need for charity.

Lets just hope you are always able to work! What if you were disabled by a, lets say, hunting accident. With no welfare you would starve and die. Who is going to look after you? The big corporations?

 

With that said could someone who opposes me please reply with substance? I tire of simple posts with hidden assumptions, accusations, and inaccuracy in what I said or meant. (Its easy to leave out sections to change meanings. Its all about perception)

Gladly, but the same should apply to you. If you continue to spout right wing rubbish then I will oppose it.

[JohnB]

Tetra, could it also be that there is a change in the wind?

 

Look at the James Hardie fiasco. Legally they may get away with it, but with the growing push against their products unless they cough up the readies, they could be looking at a severely reduced bottom line in the future.

 

With the advent of the Net, worldwide boycotts of products is now a very real threat to companies. I hope they get the message "Screw our Environment and you will go broke."

 

This is of course no bloody use whatsoever if we can't stop those obscene payouts to execs that "Resign". The JH exec dropped the company into the biggest mess in it's history (some $1.3 billion of debt) and walks away with a $9 million golden handshake. What? How the hell does that work?

[Aardvark]

Look at the James Hardie fiasco. Legally they may get away with it' date=' but with the growing push against their products unless they cough up the readies, they could be looking at a severely reduced bottom line in the future.

 

With the advent of the Net, worldwide boycotts of products is now a very real threat to companies. I hope they get the message "Screw our Environment and you [b']will[/b] go broke."

 

Consumer pressure might work with consumer goods companies, but primary producers are insulated.

 

How would consumer pressure work against a polluting copper mine or an irresponsible forestry company? The pressure would have to be second hand through boycots of companies dealing with the dubious companies, that would be quite difficult and most of the effort would be dissapated.

 

Consumer pressure can be useful but i don't think it will ever replace the need for some form of regulatory system.

[JohnB]

The pressure would have to be second hand through boycots of companies dealing with the dubious companies, that would be quite difficult and most of the effort would be dissapated.

 

Isn't that how PITA, sorry, PETA works? It can have an effect. They're trying it with Aussie wool producers now.

 

Consumer pressure can be useful but i don't think it will ever replace the need for some form of regulatory system.

 

Sorry if I gave that impression. I think that consumer pressure is an increasingly powerful adjunct to a regulatory system, but not a replacement for it.

[Aardvark]

Isn't that how PITA' date=' sorry, PETA works? It can have an effect. They're trying it with Aussie wool producers now.

[/quote']

 

Certainly, it can have an effect, but it is harder and takes a lot more effort.

 

Incidentialy what is PETA targetting Aussie sheep farmers for?

[Tetrahedrite]

Certainly' date=' it can have an effect, but it is harder and takes a lot more effort.

 

Incidentialy what is PETA targetting Aussie sheep farmers for?[/quote']

 

I believe they are targetting the practice of muelsing (not sure of the spelling) which involves removing a small section of skin and wool on the underside of the sheep so as they won't get fly blown. I think some are also protesting the live exporting of sheep to the Middle East and other places.

[Aardvark]

How exactly is PETA targeting Aussie sheep farmers?

 

And from my experience of those farmers it's going to take an awful lot to force them to change if they don't want to. Those people are independently minded and not easy to push around.

[JohnB]

Mulsing is the main reason. According to the 60 minutes interview I saw with their leading loony, PETA believe that we should employ some thousands of people to wipe the sheeps' bottoms. Mind you, when asked about whether swatting flies was bad she replied "Well the jury's still out on insects". Oh dear. She seemed to be convinced that all farmers drive rollers and are filthy rich.

 

As to their tactics. They will target stores overseas that sell products made from Aussie wool. Usual thing, smear themselves with red paint and roll around on the footpath outside. The idea is to blackmail the store into not using Aussie products. If that doesn't work they get some vegan celebrity to cause a stir and have media coverage of the "Celebrity Arrest". ( I'd like to see that tried here, might be a celebrity in the US, but over here he'd just be another number in the cell block.)

 

The Wool Industry body has served her and her organization with a writ for "future damages".

 

The organization does not believe in hunting, fishing (hunting in water), wearing leather or any other animal product, horse racing, eating eggs or cheese or drinking milk. I've never understood why they'll throw paint over women wearing furs, but not Hell's Angels, just cowards I guess.

 

They appear to be pathologically certain of their moral stance and therefore feel that any tactic they use is therefore "right". The arguments put forward are the same as any terrorist group; "Give in to our demands and no-one gets hurt. And if someone does, then it's your fault for not giving in to our demands."