Bush administration attack on hiking opportunities -speak out today-

[Blue Jay]

I believe that the environment and everything exists to be consumed.

Most would agree with you and that is exactly why, in one sentence, that the human race is doomed.

[Blue Jay]

And the earth would'nt be beautiful at all if you were'nt looking at it, bluejay. That part comes from you.

That is by far the most stupid statement ever made on WhiteBlaze, congratulations. You and I are not the center of the universe, although your ego is planet sized.

[Jack Tarlin]

Interestingly enough, Wook, I went thru the Smokies in '95, '97, '98, '99, and '00, during the days when we were led by those ardent environmentalists, Clinton and Gore. It seemed to me that the facilities in the Park were hardly improving under their leadership; in fact, the opposite was true. The place was falling apart.

So your argument that "trails, forests, and parks" are going to suffer under Republicans is simply not always the case. In some cases, Democrats are just as capable of neglect as anyone else. And let it not be forgotten that some of the preservation of some of our finest "trails, forests, and parks" came about due to the tireless efforts of Theodore Roosevelt, a staunch Republican.

Oh. I for once agree with your term "corrupt Puppet Party" when you're applying it to everyone. I've been a registered Independent for years, and will keep an open mind in 2006 and 2008. I look forward to voting for whichever candidates are the most qualified, and expect to vote for any number of Democrats next year, and with luck, for John McCain in 2008.

Pity he won't be running as an Independent, Wook. Maybe YOU might even vote for him!

[bfitz]

I like your idea of corporate sponsorship of parkland, wookie.
Blue Jay, you sound almost religious. So what is the center of the universe? I think humanity's needs should take precedence over everything else. How exactly am I wrong? I'm glad the dinosaurs got creamed, because it made room for US and we're cooler.

[bfitz]

Although I suppose the earth might also be beautiful to some visiting alien. If his sensory apparatus included eyes and emotional responses (a long shot).

[Alligator]

Alligator - I didn't mean that welfare has absolutely no place in society. But welfare for its own sake is dangerous. Welfare recipients who think they're entitled to it, and the taxpayers who agree that it's an entitlement for those who need it, are countering everything this country was founded on. You have no right to my money just because you need it, but I can share it with you if I choose to....

Let's take the you out of it first, as I do not need your money. This country was founded by landed white men who denied the right to vote to poor landless men and all women. Child labor was pretty much the norm too. Good thing times have changed.

Uncle Sam has plenty of precedents and laws to take your money. Taxation has been in effect, for what, forever? Feel free to discuss that particular argument with the IRS .

It's not welfare for its own sake, its welfare for children. Children, especially small ones, have little grasp of economics and little concept of government. While these kids surely feel like lunch should be an entitlement, I suspect the poor children benefiting from welfare do not think that lunch should be an entitlement from the government.

Here are just a few facts about poor children in AMERICA. Keep them in mind the next time you want to be a hard-ass about a kid getting something to eat.
http://www.feedingchildrenbetter.org...acts/index.jsp
Private dollars are not feeding these kids and trust me, there's more than enough money to do so.

[Teatime]

Still haven't seen this addressed: Clinton signed this Roadless rule by executive order as he was heading out the door, right? Please, correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm right, who was he paying back? He also pardoned Mark Rich (I think that was the guys name) who is a criminal. Also, what the heck did we do before that rule came into affect.
Okay, so ATC may support this roadless rule. I support ATCs stance on the proposed North Shore highway in the Smokies and their position on the proposed I-4, which might go through Unicoi Gap. Maybe we should look at these things on a case by case basis. Maybe there are occassions where a road might be usefull or beneficial and not be so much of an impact.
By the way, I am from planet Earth. However, I did receive a public education which may account for my stupidity.

[Alligator]

Interestingly enough, Wook, I went thru the Smokies in '95, '97, '98, '99, and '00, during the days when we were led by those ardent environmentalists, Clinton and Gore. It seemed to me that the facilities in the Park were hardly improving under their leadership; in fact, the opposite was true. The place was falling apart.

So your argument that "trails, forests, and parks" are going to suffer under Republicans is simply not always the case. In some cases, Democrats are just as capable of neglect as anyone else. And let it not be forgotten that some of the preservation of some of our finest "trails, forests, and parks" came about due to the tireless efforts of Theodore Roosevelt, a staunch Republican.
...

Three reasons why this is a bad argument. First, it's only one park out of many and does not illustrate the goings on in other parks. Two, this particular park does not receive any revenue from gate fees, which could explain its underfunding. Last, the president is only good for but a few large initiatives. Congress controls the purse strings. All those years you mentioned, the purse strings were held by Republicans. And to date there continues to be a huge backload of maintenance in the National Parks, and but a short interlude of Democratic control in the Senate. However, Clinton did put out the Roadless Rule. How about it Jack, will you sign the petition?

P.S. Teddy Roosevelt was an outstanding president. Didn't he end his career with the Bull Moose Party, breaking with Republicans of his day ?

[Tha Wookie]

Interestingly enough, Wook, I went thru the Smokies in '95, '97, '98, '99, and '00, during the days when we were led by those ardent environmentalists, Clinton and Gore. It seemed to me that the facilities in the Park were hardly improving under their leadership; in fact, the opposite was true. The place was falling apart.

So your argument that "trails, forests, and parks" are going to suffer under Republicans is simply not always the case. In some cases, Democrats are just as capable of neglect as anyone else. And let it not be forgotten that some of the preservation of some of our finest "trails, forests, and parks" came about due to the tireless efforts of Theodore Roosevelt, a staunch Republican.

Oh. I for once agree with your term "corrupt Puppet Party" when you're applying it to everyone. I've been a registered Independent for years, and will keep an open mind in 2006 and 2008. I look forward to voting for whichever candidates are the most qualified, and expect to vote for any number of Democrats next year, and with luck, for John McCain in 2008.

Pity he won't be running as an Independent, Wook. Maybe YOU might even vote for him!

Hmmmm.... so you only agree with the puppet term when it's applied to both puppet parties, but not when just to Republicans. Interesting partisanship from an indie. I think they're both Puppets, but the reason why I say it so much with Bush is becuase he is the Puppets of puppets, the grand hand in the rear. No man is less of one. But yes, Jack, he's not the only one. Just the worst. Every time I remember the shaky Republican battle cry, "He's a strong leader", I just have to hang my head and cry. What a joke. No one says that anymore. Duh. What were they thinking?

ANYWAY..... I'm not sure where you get your info from about NPS management, but you might want a different source. Have you read the letters written by the past heads of the NPS, admonishing the Bush Admistration for its irresponsible managment of natural resources in the park? I work with the NPS on contractual basis, and let me tell you conservative and liberals alike have big problems with the Bush gang. Don't even get me going on the Forest Service. The situation there is grim.

Thanks to the immense budget cuts and high deficits run up by the liberally spending conservatives in power, they can't even keep up with goverment mandates for management. You think the trail was bad when you hiked it? At least there was a trail, Jack.

You cast your vote, and you'll have to live with it.

Until then, you can send the petition.

[Alligator]

Teddy Roosevelt would sign it in a heartbeat.

[Tha Wookie]

from http://www.npsretirees.org/04_0708CC...OIPC-FINAL.htm

FICTION: President Bush has spent billions to attack the maintenance backlog problem, which is pegged at $4.9-$6.8 billion. FACT: In 2000, President Bush pledged to eliminate the backlog of park maintenance projects and “restore and renew” America’s national parks. For example, President Bush said: "I will ensure that the federal government meets its responsibilities by devoting $5 billion to eliminate the backlog in maintenance and improvements at our national parks" (USA Today, 10/27/00). However, the Administration has actually targeted only $662 million in NEW funding for the backlog program over the past four years – not the $2.9 billion that they repeatedly claim to have spent. (White House Fact Sheet--- http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/08/20030815.html). The $2.9 billion claim uses creative accounting and is a phony number. Deputy Park Service Director Donald Murphy admitted when he testified before Congress on July 8, 2003 that, as of that point one year ago, only "roughly $200 million to $300 million" of the $2.9 billion was new money above appropriations earmarked for annual maintenance. The rest of the $2.9 billion is simply for ongoing projects (e.g., road construction) and has nothing to do with the maintenance backlog. Candidate Bush in 2000 pointed to a leaky ceiling at the Gettysburg visitor center as a problem that needed to be fixed. That ceiling is still leaking today and is not slated to be fixed until 2009 (!) under the Administration’s neglect of the backlog problem.

Bush gang suppresses science to weaken Yellowstone protections:

http://democrats.reform.house.gov/fe...ellowstone.htm


Story about Letter to Bush from Park Officials

"The policies of President Bush and Interior Secretary Norton towards national parks are not based on science or sound conservation principles but purely on politics and favoring special interests."

http://www.scienceblog.com/community...5/pub5898.html


Bush gang protects book in Grand Canyon Bookstore that says it was created by Noah's Flood (this one is freaking scary).

“Promoting creationism in our national parks is just as wrong as promoting it in our public schools,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, “If the Bush Administration is using public resources for pandering to Christian fundamentalists, it should at least have the decency to tell the truth about it.”

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rights...anyonflood.htm

123 ex-park employees give Bush gang an "F" on park management

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0825-07.htm

More Bush Gang religious meddlings in park science and managment

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Mar2004/berkowitz0304.html

Entire Bush record: Very good Read. Jack needs to read this one!

http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/science/default.asp


SIGN THE PETITION LINKED IN FIRST POST PLEASE!

[Blue Jay]

Blue Jay, you sound almost religious. So what is the center of the universe? I think humanity's needs should take precedence over everything else. How exactly am I wrong? I'm glad the dinosaurs got creamed, because it made room for US and we're cooler.

I do not know what the center of the universe is. You don't have to be religious to know that humanity is not. Humans will cream themselves to make room for something like cockroaches who think that they are cooler. Even for a human you have a very inflated illusion of your own worth.

[Blue Jay]

Arguing about who has the worst environmental record, Democrats or Republicans, is like arguing which is better, being crushed by a rock or being crushed by a building.

[MOWGLI]

Still haven't seen this addressed: Clinton signed this Roadless rule by executive order as he was heading out the door, right?

Teatime, check the record. The USDA Forest Service received more public comments on the Roadless Rules than any other issue - ever. The public was overwhelmingly in favor of them. More than 90% of the comments were in favor of the roadless Rules. Its not like Clinton signed this into law in the dark of night. There was a VERY public & transparent process for soliciting public input regarding OUR National Forests, and in my opinion, the people's will is currently being ignored.

[Alligator]

Teatime, check the record. The USDA Forest Service received more public comments on the Roadless Rules than any other issue - ever. The public was overwhelmingly in favor of them. More than 90% of the comments were in favor of the roadless Rules. Its not like Clinton signed this into law in the dark of night. There was a VERY public & transparent process for soliciting public input regarding OUR National Forests, and in my opinion, the people's will is currently being ignored.

Actually, he did sign the executive order in the closing days of his administration. He was hesitant to turn public opinion against the Democratics while the 2000 election saga played out. If he had signed it earlier, it would be in effect today. After Bush took office, public comment was solicitated, with the above percentage of people in favor. It is an executive order also, which is not the same as a law passed by Congress. Many public lands were set aside by executive order though.

[MOWGLI]

Thanks for the clarification Alligator. This is not an issue that I spent much time on in the course of running the Southern Appalachians Initiative. Here is a timeline - plucked from the USDA National Forest Roadless Rules website;

http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/..._timeline.html

[bfitz]

I do not know what the center of the universe is. You don't have to be religious to know that humanity is not. Humans will cream themselves to make room for something like cockroaches who think that they are cooler. Even for a human you have a very inflated illusion of your own worth.

Mathematically speaking, the center of the universe is wherever I happen to be standing (or wherever you are standing, whichever you prefer, each viewpoint is equally valid) My hope is that we take an active roll in controlling our destiny in the universe. First step, gaining control of our environment and managing it as best we can so that it can produce as much abundance as possible for our consumption. We've been doing that since the first farmer planted crops, or bred the first animal species for higher yield. I don't know why you find it so offensive. I don't know why you hold your own race in such low esteem, I prefer even you to cockroaches and dinosaurs for company, and I don't even know ya.

[shades of blue]

Since we are speaking "mathematically" I would like to see your proof that "we" you, me...are the center of the universe. That doesn't make a lot of since to me...albeit...I am a music teacher.

I don't think many people would argue that we need to figure out how to grow crops well, and to use our world wisely. I would argue and say that consumption isn't always best. For example...if we consume too much of our rainforests....how will we breathe...you know...pesky oxygen producing plants and trees. We can destroy this world, and not just with WMD. I may never go to Yellowstone (although I hope to go out west one day), but that doesn't mean that I don't have a vested interest in seeing that our western national parks aren't destroyed, or irrevocably changed from wilderness areas. It doesn't matter if T. Roosevelt was a republican or if F. Roosevelt was a democrat....both had huge impacts on our national forest lands.

I don't think humans are a plague on this planet...I think "earth first" is stupid. However, I do think that we, as a people must force our leaders to do "the right thing" toward our environment...if not, what will we have to give our children?

[bfitz]

Since we are speaking "mathematically" I would like to see your proof that "we" you, me...are the center of the universe. That doesn't make a lot of since to me...albeit...I am a music teacher.

I don't think many people would argue that we need to figure out how to grow crops well, and to use our world wisely. I would argue and say that consumption isn't always best. For example...if we consume too much of our rainforests....how will we breathe...you know...pesky oxygen producing plants and trees. We can destroy this world, and not just with WMD. I may never go to Yellowstone (although I hope to go out west one day), but that doesn't mean that I don't have a vested interest in seeing that our western national parks aren't destroyed, or irrevocably changed from wilderness areas. It doesn't matter if T. Roosevelt was a republican or if F. Roosevelt was a democrat....both had huge impacts on our national forest lands.

I don't think humans are a plague on this planet...I think "earth first" is stupid. However, I do think that we, as a people must force our leaders to do "the right thing" toward our environment...if not, what will we have to give our children?

Well I agree with all that, so long as the needs of human beings come first. As far as being the center of the universe, I was just joking around a little bit, but most physicists agree that no matter where you are in the universe, and no matter which direction you look in or how powerful a telescope you use, the universe you observe will look about the same as from any other spot. As far as I am concerned my personal priorities, be they physical or philosophical, loom much larger than stuff going on in gaxaxies far far away, So in a psychological, evolutionary way (survive, reproduce, colonize other worlds, carve a galactic legacy in a manifest destiny sort of way...) I can't help but be the center of the universe, no one can. So, given that line of thinking, I was kind of taunting a little bit I admit, but so was he. Obviously with the kind of human populations we'll be experiencing over the next centuries will mean we have to meticulously engineer, maintan, and manage every "natural" resource with the highest level of technology. This will of necessity happen. Hopefully soylent green won't be people.

[Tha Wookie]

I have to commend everyone for good discussing here. Even though it strays a bit from the topic, I don't mind one bit, that's what a discussion is for.

Thanks for great input.