Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Republicans no longer the party of conservation

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Republicans no longer the party of conservation

    Teddy Roosevelt got the conservation ball rolling back in the early twentieth century. Richard Nixon did his part. Trump on the other hand has an entirely different agenda. http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-en...ed-species-act

  • #2
    Originally posted by redrover View Post
    Teddy Roosevelt got the conservation ball rolling back in the early twentieth century. Richard Nixon did his part. Trump on the other hand has an entirely different agenda. http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-en...ed-species-act
    Backsliding is an honored tradition in politics, with environmental issues near the top of the list. Link:
    The Cuyahoga River was once one of the most polluted rivers in the United States as represented by the multitude of times it has caught fire, a recorded number of thirteen starting in 1868. The most potent blaze occurred in 1952 which caused over $1.3 million in damages however, the most fatal fire happened in 1912 with a documented five deaths. The 1969 fire, which did not incur maximum damages or fatally wound any citizen, was the most covered incident occuring on the river. This was in part because of the developing precedence that sanitation held over industrial actions; the United States was becoming more eco-aware. Also, due to the shift from industry to technology, waste dumping to recycling Time Magazine produced an article about the incident. This brought mass amount of attention to the Cleveland area and added pressure for hygienic regulation.
    http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Cuyahoga_River_Fire

    I like that term, hygienic regulation. It's more to the point. Who cares about the environment? If we don't regulate hygiene, however, we could get sick. ...Like drinking water that's contaminated with petroleum products and happens to be on fire! If we ask nicely, maybe the current administration will allow for hygienic regulation to keep "fire water" issues to a minimum. However, if business is at stake, we'll need to reconsider those draconian regulations. What good is potable water, if one doesn't have a job? Link:
    Flint re-connected to Detroit's water system, and Michigan's Governor, Rick Snyder, apologized. Fifteen current or former state and city officials and staff were indicted as a result of contaminants in Flint's water.

    Like water, money has been pumped into Flint – over half a billion dollars from the federal government, from the state, and from private donations. All of the city's lead pipes are being replaced. A showplace pre-school was built; a registry was established to monitor the health of anyone affected.
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-fli...loss-of-trust/

    Sure, this looks like the communist sector had to invest most of the money, but how can a democracy-loving capitalist make money off of poor people whining about smelly water (no less?) All the same, I see business opportunities right and left. Personnel for court cases. Lots of people employed to send miscreants up the river. Re-plumbing nearly the whole city. Why, the survivors should have plenty of job opportunities, even if the positions are only temporary. Also, think optimistically of the positive, if unintended consequences. If Flint was losing population before, it should plummet moving forward. Housing prices? Down, along with a lot of other costs. Families taking greater pains to use contraception, fewer mouths to feed, fewer babies with that pesky lead poisoning syndrome. Finally, a GOP desperately trying to hang on to power in Michigan and a few other states that have heretofore enjoyed their "economic planning".

    ?


    • #3
      Originally posted by radcentr View Post
      Backsliding is an honored tradition in politics, with environmental issues near the top of the list. Link:

      http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Cuyahoga_River_Fire

      I like that term, hygienic regulation. It's more to the point. Who cares about the environment? If we don't regulate hygiene, however, we could get sick. ...Like drinking water that's contaminated with petroleum products and happens to be on fire! If we ask nicely, maybe the current administration will allow for hygienic regulation to keep "fire water" issues to a minimum. However, if business is at stake, we'll need to reconsider those draconian regulations. What good is potable water, if one doesn't have a job? Link:

      https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-fli...loss-of-trust/

      Sure, this looks like the communist sector had to invest most of the money, but how can a democracy-loving capitalist make money off of poor people whining about smelly water (no less?) All the same, I see business opportunities right and left. Personnel for court cases. Lots of people employed to send miscreants up the river. Re-plumbing nearly the whole city. Why, the survivors should have plenty of job opportunities, even if the positions are only temporary. Also, think optimistically of the positive, if unintended consequences. If Flint was losing population before, it should plummet moving forward. Housing prices? Down, along with a lot of other costs. Families taking greater pains to use contraception, fewer mouths to feed, fewer babies with that pesky lead poisoning syndrome. Finally, a GOP desperately trying to hang on to power in Michigan and a few other states that have heretofore enjoyed their "economic planning".
      It always comes back to money doesn't it?

      ?


      • #4
        I think youre all butt-hurt because your lord high Obama fancied himself the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan and Trump is just better at it than he was.

        Roosevelt was before my time, but Nixon was the original globalist with Kissinger at the SoS helm. But anyone with half a brain understands Reagan was the gold standard for conservatismm...

        ?


        • #5
          Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
          I think youre all butt-hurt because your lord high Obama fancied himself the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan and Trump is just better at it than he was.

          Roosevelt was before my time, but Nixon was the original globalist with Kissinger at the SoS helm. But anyone with half a brain understands Reagan was the gold standard for conservatismm...
          How did he do with conservation?

          ?


          • #6
            Originally posted by radcentr View Post

            How did he do with conservation?
            Reagan was the gold standard for republican conservation wisdom. He's the one who taught us that trees cause more pollution than automobiles. And he's one of the smart republicans. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Trees_cause_pollution

            ?


            • #7
              Originally posted by radcentr View Post

              How did he do with conservation?
              Are we talking about conservatism or conservation? and which "he" are we talking about, Nixon or Reagan?

              Assuming you're talking about Reagan and Conservation, the Weekly Standard presses the point Reagan, though not as ardent on conservation as Jimmy Carter or George H.W. Bush, was nevertheless an environmental protector:

              The enduring legacy of Reagans conservation agenda is a set of approaches that flowed directly out of, rather than in spite of, his free-market ideology and were implemented, in part, by those people derided as dangerous ideologues. They include limiting government subsidies to all manner of environmental destruction; ensuring that costs are attached to environmentally harmful activities; and opening public lands for multiple uses.

              Contrary to the myth of the Reagan era as one of environmental depredation, objective metrics demonstrate how well these approaches worked. Under Reagans leadership, new lead production was virtually eliminated. Carbon monoxide emissions fell by roughly a quarter, and particulate pollution was reduced 40 percent. Reagan pushed for and signed the Montreal Protocol to phase out ozone-layer-depleting, climate change-promoting chlorofluorocarbons. His administration did the initial work on a cap and trade system to control acid rain that ultimately was implemented during the George H. W. Bush administration.
              They list amongst his environmental accomplishments:[list][*] 1982-the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (federal subsidies to new development​​notably, subsidies for roads, housing, and flood insurance​​are forbidden)[*]1985-farm bill (required farmers receiving federal subsidies to comply with various conservation standards before they could cultivate erosion-prone soils and forbade the use of federal money to drain wetlands)[*]1986-Water Resources Development Act (begin charging user fees for the inland waterway system in the form of an excise tax on diesel fuel sold in marine terminals)[*]bills designating more than 10 million acres of wilderness, the highest level of protection available (although he and his appointees embraced a multi-use strategy for public lands that balanced conservation with other uses)

              BUT, they also point out:
              By no means was Reagans environmental record spotless. Indeed, among the biggest blemishes on that record are leases that sold natural resources on public land at hard-to-justify bargain basement prices. He also vetoed Clean Water Act enhancements that, when later implemented over his veto, resulted in enormous pollution reductions in streams and rivers.

              His environmental appointees were also hit and miss, particularly the earlier ones. EPA administrator Anne Gorsuch mismanaged the agency. Interior secretary James Watt (who did help push for the CBRS) turned out to be a political liability and ended up having to resign after noting in public that a coal-leasing panel was made up of a black, a woman, two Jews, and a cripple.
              So to suggest he failed the environment OR that he was an environmental giant would both be errors.

              ?


              • #8
                I think it is important to recognize two distinctly different strains of conservationism. Teddy Roosevelt was a naturist who believed that nature was there FOR man and wanted to conserve nature FOR human enjoyment. Modern conservationists believe that man is a blight on nature, and their goal is to protect it FROM man. The former apply reasonable cost-benefit analysis in determining whether or not any particular measure makes sense. The later take it as an article of faith that any restrictions on man's activities are good.

                ?


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
                  I think it is important to recognize two distinctly different strains of conservationism. Teddy Roosevelt was a naturist who believed that nature was there FOR man and wanted to conserve nature FOR human enjoyment. Modern conservationists believe that man is a blight on nature, and their goal is to protect it FROM man. The former apply reasonable cost-benefit analysis in determining whether or not any particular measure makes sense. The later take it as an article of faith that any restrictions on man's activities are good.
                  From that perspective, Reagan had more in common with Roosevelt than he did with Gore (for example)... Reagan also believed nature is here for man's enjoyment, but added to that, a more LIMITED government to protect it.

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by DavidSF View Post

                    From that perspective, Reagan had more in common with Roosevelt than he did with Gore (for example)... Reagan also believed nature is here for man's enjoyment, but added to that, a more LIMITED government to protect it.
                    The distinctions between T. Roosevelt and Gore seem reasonable. However, the generalization of conservation FOR humans vs. DESPITE humans, is limited in value. Here is one example of how Roosevelt's views on extinction evolved from 1880 to 1908:
                    In this same book, Roosevelt depicted cougars as “bloodthirsty” and “cowardly” predators with a “desire for bloodshed which they lack the courage to realize.”2 Yet despite his depiction of predators as destroyers of cattle and wildlife, Roosevelt was a careful student of predators and their natural behavior. As he spent more time studying predators in their natural setting, his attitudes toward their role in nature began to change, so much so that by 1908 he ordered predator control of Yellowstone’s cougars be stopped in order to allow these predator populations to curtail growing elk populations.
                    https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/hisn...ory/beasts.pdf

                    We still need to learn another lesson: The extinction of species caused by the activities of humans is a deadly serious issue. A human need for economic development can take a back seat to preserving an environment for non-human species. For those modern conservatives in doubt of this statement, please refer again to Roosevelt. From same link as above:
                    ...The Boone and Crockett club also stopped efforts to complete a railroad through the northern section of Yellowstone. When railroad developers wanted to decrease the park’s boundaries, publicity generated by the Boone and Crockett club created a public outcry to “save Yellowstone.”6
                    All of this admiration of TR should be placed in context; his primary motivation was to preserve critters so he could hunt them. In that respect he is open to criticism from tree-huggers (like me), that he failed to fully appreciate the value of a species for it's contribution to the overall environment, a much more important contribution than it's value to man. I would settle for today's conservatives to re-start their policy on environment -based on TR's evolution on the issue. Perhaps some day, they could evolve to a position that places the general environment above the temporary wants of humans. We get to a simple question, even if answers to the question are often difficult: "Is this a desire for a temporary business advantage, or a significant advance for both humanity and our planet's environment?"
                    One species of spotted owl demonstrated a failure for conservatives' understanding of "temporary" vs. "significant advance". In particular, harvesting wood from a region that goes through regular drought cycles, when the same material can be harvested elsewhere, places an unnecessary burden on not only a species, but the overall environment. Trees regulate the humidity and groundwater in a given region, therefore must be a protected biological class that ensure a critical minimum for all life to prosper. That would include continued economic activity by humans. In short, trees could be harvested in the semi-arid southwest, but at a much lower rate than harvest in the wetter areas to the east. Rather than bitch about the "spotted owl ruining the business of wood products", conservatives could have looked for studies that indicate the proper level of wood harvesting, based on healthy populations of that cute little owl. Nearby mountain forests help maintain a decent level of moisture for SW urban centers, which in turn helps maintain a decent general environment for all business.

                    Conservatives should criticize a lack of understanding of biology/ecology in leftists (the adorable harp seal is one classic example), who use imagery rather than science to judge the extinction status of a given species. But righties need to use a little more humility; species are present to preserve a balance in our environment, and that balance is the most important objective. Without proper balance, there will be no business activity in the long run.

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                      The distinctions between T. Roosevelt and Gore seem reasonable. However, the generalization of conservation FOR humans vs. DESPITE humans, is limited in value. Here is one example of how Roosevelt's views on extinction evolved from 1880 to 1908:
                      https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/hisn...ory/beasts.pdf

                      We still need to learn another lesson: The extinction of species caused by the activities of humans is a deadly serious issue. A human need for economic development can take a back seat to preserving an environment for non-human species. For those modern conservatives in doubt of this statement, please refer again to Roosevelt. From same link as above:


                      All of this admiration of TR should be placed in context; his primary motivation was to preserve critters so he could hunt them. In that respect he is open to criticism from tree-huggers (like me), that he failed to fully appreciate the value of a species for it's contribution to the overall environment, a much more important contribution than it's value to man. I would settle for today's conservatives to re-start their policy on environment -based on TR's evolution on the issue. Perhaps some day, they could evolve to a position that places the general environment above the temporary wants of humans. We get to a simple question, even if answers to the question are often difficult: "Is this a desire for a temporary business advantage, or a significant advance for both humanity and our planet's environment?"
                      One species of spotted owl demonstrated a failure for conservatives' understanding of "temporary" vs. "significant advance". In particular, harvesting wood from a region that goes through regular drought cycles, when the same material can be harvested elsewhere, places an unnecessary burden on not only a species, but the overall environment. Trees regulate the humidity and groundwater in a given region, therefore must be a protected biological class that ensure a critical minimum for all life to prosper. That would include continued economic activity by humans. In short, trees could be harvested in the semi-arid southwest, but at a much lower rate than harvest in the wetter areas to the east. Rather than bitch about the "spotted owl ruining the business of wood products", conservatives could have looked for studies that indicate the proper level of wood harvesting, based on healthy populations of that cute little owl. Nearby mountain forests help maintain a decent level of moisture for SW urban centers, which in turn helps maintain a decent general environment for all business.


                      Conservatives should criticize a lack of understanding of biology/ecology in leftists (the adorable harp seal is one classic example), who use imagery rather than science to judge the extinction status of a given species. But righties need to use a little more humility; species are present to preserve a balance in our environment, and that balance is the most important objective. Without proper balance, there will be no business activity in the long run.
                      Agreed.

                      I will also add, because of my value system (which I understand not many share), the Bible gives us two responsibilities as regards the Animal kingdom:
                      • Have dominion over the animals
                      • Look out for the animals


                      I do not see that animals were killed (for food or for clothing) until after the fall of man. It might have happened, but I do not see it. That suggests to me that we ARE given permission to eat meat (God even asked the Israeli's to sacrifice animals to Him), but possibly "from the beginning" it was not so.

                      Which, to me, only lends credence to what you said in that last paragraph.

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
                        Agreed.

                        I will also add, because of my value system (which I understand not many share), the Bible gives us two responsibilities as regards the Animal kingdom:
                        • Have dominion over the animals
                        • Look out for the animals


                        I do not see that animals were killed (for food or for clothing) until after the fall of man. It might have happened, but I do not see it. That suggests to me that we ARE given permission to eat meat (God even asked the Israeli's to sacrifice animals to Him), but possibly "from the beginning" it was not so.

                        Which, to me, only lends credence to what you said in that last paragraph.
                        Man demonstrated dominion over the animals a very long time ago. Unfortunately, there are people who want citizens to believe we are still "fighting" nature. And way too many citizens who seem to believe nature cannot be destroyed by our "puny" efforts.

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                          Man demonstrated dominion over the animals a very long time ago. Unfortunately, there are people who want citizens to believe we are still "fighting" nature. And way too many citizens who seem to believe nature cannot be destroyed by our "puny" efforts.
                          Ihear that California is in a lather over Trump's efforts to weaken controls on automobile emissions. It wasn't that long ago when the air around LA was virtually unbreathable.A Case for state's rights.

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by redrover View Post

                            Ihear that California is in a lather over Trump's efforts to weaken controls on automobile emissions. It wasn't that long ago when the air around LA was virtually unbreathable.A Case for state's rights.
                            California did what they needed to do when they restricted emissions in cities subject to inversions or other natural phenomena that support "stale air" or lack of circulation. Unfortunately, California joins about 49 other states that fail to restrict housing in zones that will (not "might") be destroyed by natural cycles within a relatively short time.

                            IOW, Trump's efforts to weaken a state's control over how it's citizens deal with serious challenges from it's environment is bad, but it gets washed-out by every state's negligence in sloppy application of housing codes. There are places in every state where home building should be prohibited, but are permitted anyway. fe, Lately, some CA neighborhoods get burned down every year.

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by redrover View Post

                              Ihear that California is in a lather over Trump's efforts to weaken controls on automobile emissions. It wasn't that long ago when the air around LA was virtually unbreathable.A Case for state's rights.
                              I was in elementary school during that time. WE didn't know any better: We just went out and played like we normally did and the only thing we knew for sure was, our lungs hurt to breath afterwards ... but we didn't think anything of it because a few hours inside (usually when we went to bed), it cleared up and "tomorrow" was always a whole new day.

                              EVENTUALLY, they implemented activity alerts because of the smog (a very clever contraction of SMoke and fOG) so when the "inversion" layer was moving onshore (no one really knew what that meant), the activity level was set to yellow or red and our activities were correspondingly constrained (limited outdoor activity for yellow, no outdoor activity for red): "Activity" only meant "vigorous" activity ... it didn't mean we couldn't go outside at all.

                              One of the very few things for which I give CaliPORNia government credit: They DID clean up the air.

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X