Our new President!!??

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Countryside : One Thread

Is anyone else out there at all interested as to what our President will do next to "help" the environment? So far he wants to drill for oil in Alaska, cut down the national forests for lumber and drop emission controls for factories. Wonder where his money is coming from??

-- Marcia (HrMr@webtv.net), March 30, 2001

Answers

You forgot about the sky falling.

-- Lynn Goltz (lynngoltz@aol.com), March 30, 2001.

Only to be fair - as I DO agree with you....

Bush overturned the CO2 and arsenic rulings by Clinton, but they are being studied and investigated... Promised ( I KNOW!!!) drops in the ratings within the next couple years.

I look at this as a short-sighted fix to a long-term problem, but at least he didn't rule out the possibility of dropping them at a later date. Look at who benefits... who has the $$$$????

So much propaganda... so little time....

Folks in this country's cities don't give a D*** about arsenic or CO2, nor do they really care about preserving wilderness, etc. etc. Since most folks live in cities these days... he's only doing what the population centers are clamoring for.

Besides... the levels haven't changed in decades... We ain't dead yet.

-- Sue Diederich (willow666@rocketmail.com), March 30, 2001.


Propoganda Formula: a. derive facts from television news. b. spread facts through the medium of web-tv c. sit back and hope for agreement with these new facts.

-- Action Dude (theactiondude@yahoo.com), March 30, 2001.

Action Dude:

I think Marcia raised valid questions. Fortunately, none of us are in his situation. People want cheap gas, demand a reduced reliance on foreign sources, yet decry exporation of U.S sources. What significant damage, beyond the Exxon Valdies (sp?) has drilling in Alaska caused? People complain about the price of a 2"x4", but want U.S. wildernesses to remain pristine. Ask the people in CA if they will swap a little bit dirtier air for affordable electricity. Are these decisions in his own best interest, or in the interest of the U.S. overall? It is a really tough question. To paraphrase President Truman, by the time a decision reaches his desk, all of the easy options have been eliminated.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), March 30, 2001.


I agree with Ken. There is a price (or actually a number of prices) to be paid for nearly everything we do. And one of the best things we can all do to help is to consume less. The politicians often do what they do based on what we all consume. And I know that many on this forum are doing their best to recycle, and use goods rejected by others and all sorts of wonderful things to help the earth. But any discussion that helps us all think about other ways we can improve our lifestyle is good as far as I'm concerned.

-- Cynthia Speer (farmsteader@gvtel.com), March 30, 2001.


Two things: "president select" Bush is not MY president..

Two use Ken's analagy of cheap two by fours vs. pristine wilderness; of course we can't have both; there are too many people, and counting.

JOJ

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), March 30, 2001.


The environmental whackos don't want to tell you the real facts. With new technology and sideways drilling, vast reserves can be tapped with negligible impact. The Alaskan North Slope wild area Bush wants to open for drilling is several million acres. The complete drilling operation will be run from base of less than 1000 acres. They can drill down and then sideways for eight miles or more in all directions. How does this translate into permanent destruction of the environment? If you really think this is a crisis, then you better turn off all your lights, heat and computer, because you are only contributing to the problem. Where else is the energy going to come from? Not solar, not wind. More dams? How about nuclear? Natural gas fired turbines are the most environmentally responsible alternative to provide the energy required to run this country. Would you rather cover billions of acres of land with solar panels? How about millions of acres of wind turbines to chew up flocks of birds and ruin the landscape? More coal strip mines? Why not put more dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers? Are you willing to disconnect your home from the grid and run your computer while pedaling a bicycle powered generator? How about every worker in every cubicle riding a stationary bike eight hours a day to provide thier own power to work. This country needs power and oil is the best way to provide it. Without oil we're on our way back to the dark ages. As for the forests, what's your house built with? Foresters are more responsible than they once were. We know how to renew this resource. This is not an "all or nothing" proposition. Don't be so reactionary. As for emission controls, one volcanic eruption puts more harmful pollutants into the air in one day, than this entire nation can in a year. If you really want to improve air quality significantly, why don't you go cap some volcanoes? We finally get a President with some real leadership ability and you condemn him before you see the true results of his work. I don't doubt there is lots of money coming from big business lobbies. It's the same big business that creates the prosperity that makes it possible for you and nearly every other household in America to have a computer in your home and the freedom to debate these issues on the internet. You all sound like you're you would cut off your nose just to spite your face.

-- Skip Walton (sundaycreek@gnrac.net), March 31, 2001.

Hey, Jump off Joe, You think there are too many people? I hope you don't have any kids. You're not planning on having any are you? I wouldn't expect someone with your "too much population" philosophy to compromise his own beliefs by adding to the problem.

-- Skip Walton (sundaycreek@gnrac.net), March 31, 2001.

Didn't take too long to find out what to expect from him for the next 4 years. What a depressing disaster for all of us who want to clean up and protect the environment. Hang in there Marcia Because I seriously doubt he's a two termer.....Kirk

-- Kirk Davis (kirkay@yahoo.com), March 31, 2001.

Skip why the attack and name calling? How about a little respect here....Kirk

-- Kirk Davis (kirkay@yahoo.com), March 31, 2001.


"Two things: "president select" Bush is not MY president.. "

You may not regard President Bush as your President, but he is. He is the first glimmer of integrity the White House has seen since Reagan. I get a little short when people start bashing him, because I regard him as MY president.

People make it sound like his agenda is to destroy the environment. That's hardly fair. You are right. The easy choices are gone. Only hard decisions are left. Extreme environmentalism is not interested in honestly examining all the options in light of the truth. Their agenda is to distort the facts. In regards to oil exploration, drilling and the environment, we really can have our cake and eat it too.

-- Skip Walton (sundaycreek@gnrac.net), March 31, 2001.


We could get cheaper lumber locally if the loggers in our countys were subsidized like the big timber companys that want to log vigin forrest .Just the logging roads themselves although gravel, are high dollar, quality roads subsidized by the U.S. gov't.Cut and graded almost as well as some of the countrys interstate highways.Well maintain and much nicer than the road I drive to town.The cost of these roads are not included in the sale of the lumber.See, our gov't cares.We are buying subsidized (cheap) lumber.But it looks cheap on papper, while money from taxes also pays some of the cost.I can buy a 2x4 thats been harvested 3 thousand miles away that went through at least 1 middle man ,cheaper at home depot then I can from the family sawmill 3 miles away that logged and milled their own lumber.If local loggers were subsidized maybe they could sell their lumber cheaper.It's sad to see vigin forrest turned into tree farms.All Wild native nut and fruit trees and other plant species start to diappear.They to are a resources.They are needed to maintain the overall long term health of the forrest.That's how those trees lasted so long and got so big and healthy. many species of trees ,plants schrubs, ferns and moss, will be lost because only lumber trees are considered of value and replanted.Topsoil gets washed away after cuting big trees,steams become muddy and life dies in the streams.I think it would make sense to use lumber from a cleared parcel to build a home with.Maybe if people got subsidized for using timber that came off their pacel that they were building on,there'd be less of a demand for vigin forrest.Which in the 80's was being sold to Japan also subsidized by our taxes.I think the logging comapanys sold it to them cheaper then if they came here and cut it down themselves.And the timber companys didn't lose money it was tax payers who lost.We need our virgin forrest for research incase humans decide they need them for something they overlooked in the past and present.OOPS!Can't bring em back as easily and fast as we cut em down.As far as blaming Bush or any other single person.We're all in this together.We all did this.Directly or indirectly.Most of us who think we're enviormentalist need to take responsibility for the way things are, which are a result of what we wanted.Without a demand for it they will never cut it down.

-- Steve (a12goat@cs.com), March 31, 2001.

President Bush is the legitimately-elected President of the United States, regardless of how much some people claim otherwise.

The facts speak for themselves. No matter how you re-count Florida, Bush comes out ahead in votes. Which means he got more electoral votes than Gore. Which means he fairly won the presidency according to the established laws of this country.

Democrats wanted to throw aside the Constitution and make up new election rules on-the-fly. All the Republicans ever asked for was that the RULE OF LAW be upheld. Too bad it took the intervention of the US Supreme Court to enforce the law. It should never have gotten that far.

-- Brett (brettinokla@aol.com), March 31, 2001.


My vote goes with Action dude, Ken and Skip. I voted for President Bush and so far I think he is doing a good job. Since he was in the oil business I would expect him to know a bit about it. It has always amazed me that environmentalists(not all but many) live the same consumerism lives as their neighbors. They holler just as loud as anyone else when fuel prices go up. Most don't live out in the country and have to deal with ridiculous environmental regulations that are more of a hassle than a help. Do we need to keep our water safe and our air clean?....you betcha! It needs to be done with some common sense and logic though. The fact is what is necessary is to reduce energy needs. Unfortunately wasteful America won't do that until we are forced to. We enjoy our lifestyles too much. The best the politicians can do is put off us learning that lesson.

-- Amanda in Mo (aseley@townsqr.com), March 31, 2001.

Skip. I agree with you and your statement "The environmental whackos don't want to tell you the real facts". The "environmental freaks" do not have a clue as to the great scope and size of our forests. They probably have never seen a forest close up let alone walked in one. As close as they get to a forest is their local city newsstand.

-- Lynn Goltz (lynngoltz@aol.com), March 31, 2001.


Bush = integrity? I don't think so. Example---He sez during the campaign reduce CO2 emissions, then three months in office "I changed my mind" (remember "read my lips"--the apple don't fall far from the tree)and not even a whine from the dems. If it'd been Clinton or Gore doing the blatent turn about and blatent turnaround on a campaign promise they'd still be raising hell about it. (Sorry about the redundancy there. I tried to delete but the delete stopped working for some reason)

The guys a puppet for big business, a self proclaimed "moderate" but has I believe a hidden agenda. Translate that to wolf in sheeps clothing.,

-- john (natlivent@pcpros.net), March 31, 2001.


I think to say enviormentalist are wacko or freaks and are all city people who never walked in the forrest is misleading.There are also country born and raised people here in the south east,that don't know what a paw paw is or a persimmon and know little of their own woods, as they rarely do any activity that doesn't require the use of their auto mobile.They feel more at home at the mall an hour away then they do in the forrest in their own back yard.Just because a person owns a jet doesn't mean he's a piolet.And you don't have to own a jet to be a piolet. There was an 11 year old city boy in 97' who was lost for 3 rainy days in the mountains at an altitude of over 5,000 feet with just a T-shirt and shorts.He wasn't even crying when they found him.The volunteers who found him nicknamed him Davy Croccett ,because he look as though he was at home in the woods.He ate berries drank from springs and slept under bushes to keep warm on the cold mountain nights.I know big strong country folk who are afraid to walk the hills in their own back yards cause a snake or a black bear will get em.Enviormentalist may not have the answers,but at least they acknowlege there's a problem.Which is a start.And although most might have unrealistic solutions,some have very pactical ones.But there's no profits to be made from these practical solutions,so they go ignored by the ones in power (politicians & energy companys).If we do have a real energy shortage, why are Americans still wasting resorces,by riding boats, jet skies, off road veicles, private airplanes all for recreation purposes.these wasteful recreations are still encouraged .The energy shortage in California may be staged to get the support for drilling.If it is staged, it's a very effective way to persuede people to side with the energy vampires .Media doesn't help by making the automobile a symbol of freedom and indepedence.From movies to car commercials,the automobile is glamourtised ,to make us desire all the latest luxuries.They are penthouses on wheels with push butom everything,that makes them consume more fuel then if you had to crank down the window with your hand.Everyone wants a sports utility veicle with four wheel drive even if they live on pine flats where it never snows?Yet no extra taxes are put on these veicles to discourage people from buying one instead of a veicle that uses much less fuel.If there is a fuel shortage ,why aren't the american public being incouraged to think in a conservative fuel saving way.I think we're being influenced to continue being wasteful and told it's our rights and it represents freedom.It's hard to figure how everyone was trained to think.People in my community were upset about good hunting and farm land was turning into sudivisions over night.The county passed a law that on a 4 acre parcel you can only build up to 5 homes.It so we won't turn into the city 10 years in the future.All the people I know who complained about the subdivisions, were now upset the gov't was telling them how they could use their land.They felt their freedom was taken away.Yet none of these same people plan to put a second home on their propety,never mind 5 ,the ammount you could have on 4 acres.Some how they were convinced,to protest and petition the law makers to change back the law the way it was.I believe a land developer,probably from a different state was the one who influenced the people to believe this new law was taking away their freedom.The developers were the only ones hurt by the new law.I think part the reason to use vigin forrest is it will be subsadized with tax money which will give some people a position to skim some of those tax dollars into their own personel bank account.

-- Steve (a12goat@cs.com), March 31, 2001.

Say Skip, et al, just curious.....

Just what do you envision as the sinister motive of the enviromental whackos, since they , um, "don't want to tell you the real facts"?

Oh, and about treating the new president with his due respect.....yes, we should definitely all take that lesson to heart, and vow to treat him with the same amount of respect that the previous one was treated by those who disagreed with him.

Ah the energy of self-righteous indignation; isn't this fun?

-- Earthmama (earthmama48@yahoo.com), March 31, 2001.


For someone who likes real facts, I find a load of garbage in Skip's first post. He quotes all the "real facts" that the profit-at-any- cost anti environmentalists use. There is NO DOUBT that atmospheric CO2 is increasing exponentially. The measurements are there for anyone to see! The uncertainty is that nobody knows at what level there will be a problem. The volcanic emissions are a completely different chemical composition and totally irrelevent. As for not honoring the Kyoto treaty, where does Bush come from???? Every devoloped nation in the world agreed on this one! There were huge compromises made in the wording simply to get the U.S. to sign at all. How much executive power does the President have? Could he decide that WW2 wasn't over because he personally didn't agree with the terms?

-- David C (fleece@eritter.net), March 31, 2001.

How about us just respecting the "office" of the president of the United States of America, and let the occupant earn his own respect (something that has not been attempted for several years now...).

-- Ed Copp (OH) (edcopp@yahoo.come), March 31, 2001.

If all of the volcanoes on earth erupted at their full capacity for one full day, the net result would be lots of ash and visible particulates, but less CO2 and other green house gasses than the US puts out daily, by a wide margin. I can't remember where I saw this, but it is a reality.

-- Soni (thomkilroy@hotmail.com), March 31, 2001.

Wow! I guess I opened up a real Pandora's Box when I posted this question. Sorry about that...I really didn't mean to ruffle anyone's feathers. But I get kinda nervous when it seems like we might (and I emphasize the word might!) be taking a step backwards when it concerns the environment. I have a 3 yr. old granddaughter and I would dearly love for her to have the same world available to her when she's grown up. And even though I do drive one of those full-size 4 wheel drive pickups and (gasp!!) have a boat, I do all I can to recycle, reduce and reuse. Yes, our home is built with wood...logs that were selectively, and we heat entirely with wood cut on our property. And, as I'm sure most of you guys do, I visit the grocery store as little as possible since we grow almost all we need. Doesn't seem fair to me that we're all doing what we can to save the earth, but Mobil, Exxon or Irving just keep taking more from it. Maybe they should try to figure out a way to harness that volcanic activity!! But, to sum it up, that "Read my lips" thing is still pretty fresh in my mind. I think my next posting will definitely be lots lighter :)!!

-- Marcia (HrMr@webtv.net), March 31, 2001.

Marcia, with your bringing up the "Read My Lips" stuff. If you added up the taxes Bush Senior added to the coffers, does it equal the amount Bush Junior is wanting to give away? I am hoping that in retirement a move to the hill country in Texas will aliveate some of my asthma problems, asthma I didn't have in 25 years of living East of San Diego. With Bush in office I may not be able to get far enough away from the pollution. I wish every one of Bush's supporters could fly into Houston Hobby Airport, step out into the humidity and taste the air :) Vicki

-- Vicki McGaugh TX (vickilonesomedoe@hotmail.com), March 31, 2001.

Vicky, is pollution really as bad in Texas as I've heard? I'm sure that with the relaxing of emission controls on factories it will get LOTS worse here in Maine!

-- Marcia (HrMr@webtv.net), March 31, 2001.

Marcia, it would be nothing when we lived in Pasadena (called stink-a- dena) to go out to your vehicles and find a powder/film on them. Like up here in the woods when the pollen from the pines is on everything. Asthma is the number one problem in children. When you drive from up here about 1 and 1/2 hours north of Houston, down into Houston you can see the air. Start smelling it about the 610 loop around the city. The water in Pasadena breaks my oldest daughters skin out, so badly that they are moving. The refineries let off emissions during storms, thinking that the bellowing smoke will be undetected. We have more pollution days than Los Angeles and are still number one in the nation. It has only gotten worse with the current Govenors. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that our move north saved my life. Vicki

-- Vicki McGaugh TX (vickilonesomedoe@hotmail.com), March 31, 2001.

Hey Vicki does houston air taste like California air? Ours taste a bit like burnt toast!....Tree huggin, communist, whacko, freak. I like to add up the names that my type have been called around here when you have a difference in opinion!!!!.....Kirk

-- Kirk Davis (kirkay@yahoo.com), March 31, 2001.

A few of points I'd like to address. 1. Bush is not the only one against the Kyoto treaty. The U.S. Senate voted against it 95 to 0. Leftist and those on the right rejected this flawed plan. Now its only the "evil" Republicans being blamed for not adopting it. 2. I lived in Alaska for 12 years. There's more renewable timber up there going to waste thanks to Herr Clinton than most people can imagine. It was carefully managed and employed a huge industry, now we import more wood from the 3rd world that perhaps is not as carefully managed. Also costing us more American jobs and trade losses. I also was deeply involved with the clean up of the Exxon Valdez. It was a terrible short term disaster. We learned from it and hopefully will never have to endure it again. The "bunny huggers" were deeply against drilling in the north slope from the start. However, the shrill cry of the "world is going to end due to the environmental devastation" up there never happened. The portion of ANWR that is being looked at is a tiny (relatively speaking) portion of the refuge. Alaska is huge. To give you some perspective (don't get mad at me Texans) If we cut the Alaska in half, Texas would be the third largest state. 3. I'd rather our president be interested in American business than in lining his pocket from the red Chinese government or worrying which intern he was going to molest today.

-- Roscoe Rotten (rkphipps@simflex.com), April 01, 2001.

Skip, I suppose I'm one of what you are calling an "environmental wackos". You ask, "Would you rather cover billions of acres of land with solar panels? " NO, Skip, I would not. I WOULD, however, love to see enough research, and possibly even subsidization, to see millions of acres covered with solar panels. Specifically, I'd like to see millions of acres of ROOFS covered with solar panels, thus eliminating a lot of pollution, and lots of ill earned profits from the price manipulativing power companies.

As for horizantal drilling, do you really expect us to believe that the oil companies are going to drill an extra eight miles, in order to "protect the environment", rather than drilling straight down? I thought they worked on the profit motive...

Now to the issue of your math (which is the TRULY wacko thing here), and how it proves that your arguments don't hold water (much less oil spills). A million acres makes a square approximately forty miles on a side. Your "base of less than 1000 acres" would only be slightly over a mile square. Thus, if the "base" were located centrally, the wells would have to be drilled over twenty miles horizantally in order to reach even ONE million acres. If the companies, and dubya, are truly interested in "several million acres", as you stated, the horizantal drill distances would be correspondingly longer. Sorry. Nice try. Where did you get your figures? From dubya? I've always suspected that his math skills were on par with his reasoning abilities.

And Skip, virtually all your rhetoric which deals with "where are we going to get" more power, and so forth, overlooks the only truly viable option: population stabilization, or reduction.

As to your nosy question about MY reproductive history, and future, I'll tell you. I had ONE child, when I was twenty six years old. Right after his birth,in the interest of doing MY PART to preserve the livability of our SHARED planet Earth, I got myself fixed. I've been shooting blanks now for almost thirty years.

What about YOU, Skip? What have you done?

Skip, as an "extreme environmentalist", if you want to call me that, I must tell you that my agenda is NOT to distort the facts, but rather to examine them. I think you should do the same.

The reason I don't accept dubya as my president, is he was "SELECTED", not "ELECTED". HELLO?

Lynn, you stated, incorrectly, " The "environmental freaks" do not have a clue as to the great scope and size of our forests." I assume you consider me to be an environmental freak. I have lived and worked in the woods for thirty-three years now. I've worked as a hydrologist for both the Water Resources Dept of the US Geological Survey, and for the Siskiyou National Forest. I live on, and manage, 43 acres of forest land. (RENEWABLY, I might add). What are YOUR qualifications which make you such an expert on forest management?

Steve, I agree with most of what you say. I'd add, "if there's a real energy shortage, why don't the gov't types ENCOURAGE wood heat, rather than DISCOURAGING it?" And why did my local power company discontinue their "Super Good Cents" program, which was very effective at energy conservative building practices?

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), April 02, 2001.


I got too excited, and forgot to rebut all this talk about how much timber is left. I suggest that anyone who thinks we're in timber heaven to fly over the western parts of California, Oregon, Washington or British Columbia. You'll be shocked! Almost everywhere you look, the land is a checkerboard of clearcuts.

Roscoe, be happy that there's still so much timber in Alaska. I'm glad to hear it. I hope the timber beasts don't treat your state with the same recless abandon they used here in Oregon. I personnally would rather dubya bot a b.j. from every member of his staff twice a day than that he persued his current direction. What a jerk! Besides, he's not so sexually pure as you might think. Do you know about his masterbation in a coffin while reciting all his sexual exploits in front of the other members of the "Skull and Bones" club while in college? No? Want the URL for the article about it in Atlantic Monthly?

JOJ

When I worked for Siskiyou Nat'l Forest (in sw Oregon) I had a map of the forest from 1966. There were exactly TWO roads into the entire east side of the Nat'l Forest, both dirt. More like jeep trails, actually. By 1980 most of this Nat'l Forest had a road approximately every one quarter mile!

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), April 02, 2001.


The earth will do what she needs to do to survive--which could possibly mean no more human beings for a while. There'll be plenty of time to replace old-growth forests after we're all gone.

-- Betsy in NY (sassyweitzel@yahoo.com), April 02, 2001.

I heard on NPR that there is only 3 months to 2 years supply of oil in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge and that it would take at least ten years to get it to the consumer. Doesn't hardly sound worth it to me even if they could get it without buiding a road or spilling a drop. Personally I would be willing to pay double the price at the pump if it would keep us out of the ANWR. Also, I've read that solar panels are made with oil, shouldn't we be using much of what we have left to manufacture more panels so we can get by with no oil when it runs out?

Having just read a book about the practices of our modern forest service and BLM, I can say I was shocked by what they are doing. Did you know that the forest service routinely sells lumber for less than it costs to harvest it. The BLM virtually always rents land for grazing at a fraction of what it costs to maintain the land.(They are wasting our taxpayer money)

For those of you who are interested in the environment I'd like to recommend 2 books. "Deep Ecology for the 21st century" edited by George Sessions & "Confessions of an Eco-Warrior" by Dave Foreman. I learned more from those 2 books than all the others combined.

-- debra in ks (solid-dkn@msn.com), April 02, 2001.


Joe- You're absolutely right, Bush was selected, just as every other duly elected president of this country has been. He was selected by the electoral college which we, as a citizenry, have chosen to keep as our method of choosing a leader. I'll listen to your whining as soon as you acknowledge that the decision by the Forida Supreme court that the US justices ruled on was at least as flawed and politically motivated as the final ruling itself.

As for why wood heat is being decried by the govt., just go back and read the many doomsaying global warming posts and ask yourself which group is easier for the govt. to pick on: large, multinational power companies or unorganized woodburning consumers and ask yourself what the previous administration did to help this problem.

I would love to see the govt. spend the money on research and development for renewable energy and I have seen the Bush administration at least pay lip service to this. Whether it will come to fruition is up to us, as a country, and how much pressure we apply to make it happen. Apparently the last administration weren't the good listeners and environmental friendlies some thought or we wouldn't just begin to be fighting the battle now. Bush is with us for 4 more years and I , for one, am willing to see if he follows through with good or bad before praising too much or condemning too soon.

-- ray s (mmoetc@yahoo.com), April 02, 2001.


Is God an "environmental wacko" since he made the earth covered with water, flora and fauna instead of concrete and asphalt? Just a thought.

-- debra in ks (solid-dkn@msn.com), April 02, 2001.

Betsy says, "The earth will do what she needs to do to survive--which could possibly mean no more human beings for a while. "

Betsy, I agree that mother earth will do whatever is necessary to recover, if we humans are gone. Other species will be gone, too, of course. I personally would rather that we humanoids learn to live within the capacity of the planet, and not have to go extinct.

Could you please explain what you mean by "for a while?"

JOJ

Ray, if you think it's "whining", please don't bother listening to it.

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), April 02, 2001.


This is really great to know that there are so many other folks as concerned as I am about where this earth is heading. And we all haven't even touched on the subject of what's happening to the oceans!! By the way, does anyone remember which president it was that installed a woodstove in the White House? Jimmy Carter seems to come to mind for me.

-- Marcia (HrMr@webtv.net), April 02, 2001.

jumpoff joe,

Would you be so kind as to email me (my email addy is real). I tried sending you an email but it bounced. I wanted to talk to you about something in private.

Thanks.

-- Jim Morris (prism@bevcomm.net), April 02, 2001.


When I was younger with a pilot licence I flew through N. CA and Oregon and I saw the clearcut checkerboards. I dropped a 1000 ft out of shock. If you want to study clearcuts up close do some long distance backpacking. Stumps and slash everywhere! Ground tornup and scarred. If the general public could see some of that it would stop!!!....Kirk

-- Kirk Davis (kirkay@yahoo.com), April 03, 2001.

Joe- sometimes its hard not to listen when you insist on including the same drivel all the time, even when other parts of your post may make valid points.

Clearcutting, while not neccesssarily good as practiced in the past, can be a valuable wildlife resource management tool. Mature forests provide limited habitat and forage opportunities while the new growth in clearcuts and the edge habitat created around them provide food and shelter for a much greater diversity of wildlife. This is a function performed by nature in the past through unchecked wildfires which through our management practices we have, in the recent past, tried to eliminate. This falls under the be careful what you try to change in nature, you may get unwanted consequences paradigm that the global warming alarmists love to ignore.

-- ray s (mmoetc@yahoo.com), April 03, 2001.


Hate to say it folks, but there's no easy solution. On both sides of all the arguments there are selective facts and omissions. The real failing is the system of government that is blind to facts except those that affect campaign finance. I, personally, can do nothing to solve that. In the meantime, I'll do my best to stay educated in areas where I can make a difference, and do my best to keep our family consumption to a minimum. It's all we can do, and it's why we are where we are.

-- David C (fleece@eritter.net), April 03, 2001.

debra in ks...if he is, he's my kinda wacko.

-- jz (oz49us@yahoo.com), April 03, 2001.

That's how I feel too, Joe, thanks for listening.

-- Betsy in NY (sassyweitzel@yahoo.com), April 03, 2001.

Debra in Ks wrote: Is God an "environmental wacko" since he made the earth covered with water, flora and fauna instead of concrete and asphalt?

Thank you for the best moment of my day, so far!

Marcia wrote: By the way, does anyone remember which president it was that installed a woodstove in the White House? Jimmy Carter seems to come to mind for me.

I think that was Abe Lincoln, Marcia. Okay, sorry, couldn't resist. ;-) Jimmy Carter turned down the thermostat, wore a sweater because of the lower temps, and put solar panels on top of the White House. Reagan took them off. I never expected Clinton to be a good environmentalist, but since he put Gore in charge of environmental matters, and nothing much happened, I didn't vote for Gore either.

-- Joy F (So.Central Wisconsin) (CatFlunky@excite.com), April 03, 2001.


Joy...sometimes I feel as "old as Abe"!!!! But thanks for setting me staight.

-- Marcia (HrMr@webtv.net), April 03, 2001.

See that.....I must be getting old! I can't even spell "straight". There, that's better.

-- Marcia (HrMr@webtv.net), April 03, 2001.

April 4, 2001

An Analysis of Florida Balloting Favors Bush

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

MIAMI, April 3 A newspaper review of Florida's "undervote" ballots concludes that President Bush would almost certainly have still won the state had the United States Supreme Court allowed a hand recount to be completed.

The Miami Herald and USA Today reported in Wednesday's papers that Mr. Bush would have expanded his 537-vote margin of victory to 1,665 votes if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court had gone ahead under the most inclusive standards, where even partial punches and dimples were counted as votes.

When the process was stopped, recounts using a variety of standards had already had been completed in seven counties Broward, Escambia, Hamilton, Madison, Manatee, Palm Beach and Volusia -- and in 139 Miami-Dade County precincts.

Mr. Bush's 1,665 margin was based on the assumption that those numbers would stand, but that in all the rest of the state the most generous standards would be applied.

On the other hand, the Herald reported that the balance would have tipped to Vice President Al Gore if a recount of the undervotes had been started from scratch in all 67 Florida counties using the most inclusive standards. Under that hypothetical recount, free from the fragmented chronology of the postelection contest, Mr. Gore would have won the White House, the paper found, but with an even narrower margin of victory than Mr. Bush: only 393 votes.

An undervote is a ballot on which no preference for president registered; an overvote is a ballot on which more than one preference registered.

USA Today's analysis focused exclusively on what might have happened if the recount had been allowed to continue.

The results bucked the expectations of both the Democratic and Republican teams during the Florida recount contest, finding that the more inclusive standards sought by Mr. Gore would have helped Mr. Bush. And the strictest standard sought by Republicans that only clean ballot punches be counted would have given Mr. Gore victory by three votes. Both newspapers said that was too close to withstand the possibility of errors.

"Many Americans were asking the question, What would the result be if the Florida Supreme Court's order to conduct hand recounts in all 67 counties were carried out?" Martin Baron, the Herald's executive editor, said today. "We felt it was our responsibility to answer questions that so many people had."

The review of 61,195 undervotes did not examine the approximately 110,000 overvotes in the election. Both papers are planning a separate analysis of the overvote next month.

A group consisting of The Associated Press, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, The Palm Beach Post, The St. Petersburg Times, The Wall Street Journal and Tribune Publishing, which owns The Orlando Sentinel and The Sun- Sentinel in South Florida, is analyzing all uncounted presidential ballots cast in the Florida election.

That ballot review, by the National Opinion Research Center, is expected to be released next month.

The Florida Supreme Court order to conduct the hand counts specified that only undervotes should be counted. But the United States Supreme Court decision halting the recount noted that overvotes were being excluded.

Gore supporters were quick to interpret the newspaper findings today as evidence that the vice president should have won Florida's 25 electoral votes and thus the presidency.

Doug Hattaway, Mr. Gore's national campaign spokesman and now a Democratic consultant in Boston, said: "What this shows is that if you count the voter's intent, Gore wins. If you look for excuses not to count votes, Bush does better."

A White House spokesman, Ken Lisaius, countered that the 537-vote victory was the correct tally.

"The law of the land are those rules that were in place on Election Day," Mr. Lisaius said. "Using that standard, President Bush won on Election Day."

While media reviews of the election are interesting, they do not answer the question of what constitutes a vote, said Philip Zelikow of the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, who is helping craft a federal commission on election reform.

"The problem the Supreme Court found was that there was no consistent standard and no time to devise and fully apply one," Mr. Zelikow said. "So newspapers are now answering the what-if questions without having to settle any of the problems the Supreme Court confronted."

The analysis found that, regardless of the undervote reviews, only one thing was truly clear: Precise numbers released on election night masked imprecision and chaos.

The Herald and USA Today said only eight of Florida's counties were able to produce for inspection the exact number of undercount ballots they reported on election night.

And the Herald noted that mistakes occurred both in machine and hand counts. It said Pasco County acknowledged that multiple machine recounts produced a different number of undervotes: 1,776 on Nov. 8, 1,712 on Dec. 9 and 1,744 on Feb 5. Duval County, which reported 4,967 undervotes on election night, ended up delivering 5,106 such ballots for inspection by the Herald after a hand recount.

The Herald and USA Today hired the national accounting firm BDO Seidman to conduct the review. At least two people a reporter and a BDO Seidman auditor looked at each undervote and recorded what they saw, including dimples, pinpricks and hanging chads on punch- card ballots and all discernible markings on optical scan ballots.

The reporter and the auditor did not discuss findings or share notes.

BDO then entered the results into a computer database and tabulated the different markings for each candidate. The Herald tabulated reporters' findings to look for statistical variations, but it said it did not use those counts in its analysis.

The study cost more than $500,000 and employed 27 accountants, in addition to reporters.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), April 04, 2001.


That's interesting -- I heard on CNN last night that if you counted pimpled dimples, then Bush would have won (but the Republicans didn't want those counted, so doesn't that mean that we shouldn't count it?), however, by excluding those questionable ones, that Gore won by three votes ...and a third method had Gore winning again by over a thousand.

That's best two out of three, isn't it?

I still didn't vote for Gore, but being an outsider to the Republicrat party, it still seems to me like Gore got it. Even if it was only getting the shaft. I wonder if he can sue in civil court.

-- julie f. (rumplefrogskin@excite.com), April 04, 2001.


"Two out of three"???

What about all the ADDITIONAL recounts that you didn't cite, all of which agree Bush won? Including the official count and automatic recount that took place immediately after the election.

I just wonder when you people are going to finally get over this whole election thing... This much bitterness over something you can't change isn't healthy. Even Gore himself has moved on with his life, so why can't you?

-- Brett (brettinokla@aol.com), April 04, 2001.


i would like to answer a few things here if i may. 1. the "enviromentalist wacko" is really in many, but not all, are really socialist by nature. it is about control not trees, my point was made when someone complained that the gov doesn't punish those who buy suv's and such with a big tax. also i believe there was a worry about the oil only lasting three months. my question is why would an oil company bother? could it be that we should not use our own resourses? 2. would someone explain why i should be concerned about co2, in biology i learned plants use this gas and thrive in it, so what is the problem? 3. in the world of what if's one should point out that in fla. the results were anounced before the polls closed and the military votes just never seemed to turn up. no i am not saying this was handled right but does it really make a differance? i should point out i did not vote for either gush or bore. 4. is it more important to take care of our own problems and people or to look after short term problems. case in point, trees grow back oil in the ocean will go away (just like it did with valdez), that being said there are some things you and i can do to make things better. work to show those around you that a huge $50,000 machine is not needed to go to work and that houses do not need to be catheadrals and useless waste should be curtailed. but i have to wonder why should we force someone else to do as we will. should we not look to protect another important natural resource? freedom!!!! 5. does anyone really thing that the vast majority of the gov or the people give a rip about tomorrow? i would like to pass on the idea of living by example. even today i know people who are inspired by whitman. 6. yes God gave us this world and we should take care of it, but should we force others to do so by force of law or more? 7. right now british petroleum is looking into solar power and how the can produce power when oil is "gone". 8. the technology is not quite ready to replace oil but we should encourage those energy companies to begin looking. i fear that we could be in deep doodoo when the oil is tapped. i want a safe and secure future as well as clean. 9. as to the volcano/daily output debate.... the volcano does put out much more polutants, however i think that is better than mercury or lead or plutonium or ammonia. so think about this do you have a problem with toxic waste in your water then what about the floride? there is far less arsnic in the water that you eat when you have apple pie. i know my spelling is bad but please consider what i wrote.....

-- stephen (speaktothesky1@home.com), April 04, 2001.

I really don't think people care anymore about ballots, recounts and dimples!! I think that maybe most of us have gotten over it. The original posting was about concern for the environment---not whether or not Bush (or "Dubya") should have won. We're getting off the track here! I just think that the American people should hold Bush (or any President) responsible for whatever he or she promised (environmentally) before being elected!! And we should be doing all we can to help the Earth and all it's creatures to survive!

-- Marcia (HrMr@webtv.net), April 04, 2001.

Yes you are right the enviroment is all that matters. I believe we need to start making people pay attention to the enviroment. This thee most important thing period. No clean air or water then all our kids will suffer or die! First we should have all people in the cities ride bikes or the bus, which we should make solar as soon as possible, those people are ruining it for all of us how dare they waste all of nature's resources. Then we should shut down all the factories and power plants that are not clean. I think that would be a good start. Then we should think about getting rid of spray paint and lawn chemicals.

-- steve (katn92sk@aol.com), April 05, 2001.

Your sarcasm is duly noted, Steve--good for you for making such a thoughtful contribution. This forum gets nastier every day.

-- Betsy in NY (sassyweitzel@yahoo.com), April 05, 2001.

Yes Brett, two out of three. That was the final count done without the Republicans heel dragging that stopped all the previous ones. I was always taught to play fair and do the right thing in life, not just what personally profited me. Actually, I don't think either the Republicrats or the Demicans winning is in the best interest of the country.

And I agree that they should be held responsible for their promises, just as Marcia said, I only bring that up to indicate that we are NOT going to be seeing anything new here from the current administation.

Last I heard, oil is not biodegradable, and the clean-up from Exxon's Valdez disaster was mainly cosmetic and that the oil is still in the soil there. They didn't recover all the oil, so it didn't do a magic trick and 'disappear'

The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that there are only 3.2 billion barrels of oil that are economically recoverable in the Arctic Refuge...production would peak in 2027 at 150 million barrels, which is only 1.5% of U.S. energy consumption. I don't think that'll make a dent in our oil dependance on other countries. It will do NOTHING to lower gas or heating oil prices that we are currently experiencing, because it would take ten years to create the neccessary facilities to drill for it, the hundreds/thousands of miles of road they'd rip through the tundra, and all the dumps they'd create for their waste in the process. It will do absolutely nothing to reduce prices on natural gas.

You have only to look at the environmental record of the existing oil facilities at Prudhoe Bay, 60 miles away to know that this is a bad idea. From 1996 to 1999 -- a mere three years -- the oil industry was responsible for 400-some spills PER YEAR, releasing more than 1.2 million gallons of crude oil, diesel fuel, acid, and other hazardous materials.

Remember, that stuff doesn't magically disappear, it enters the water and food chain, and eventually it finds us all.

I was listening to C-Span last night, and it was brought up that the Republicans had had a 3 hour fundraiser to push their 'tax cut package'. They made $7 million in that time. That was at one little fundraiser. Who were the people who gave that outrageous kind of money? I'm sure it wasn't little homesteaders. I suspect that it was big private interest groups... Marcia's point is well taken, who is funding forcing the destruction of the Arctic Refuge through?

-- julie f. (rumplefrogskin@excite.com), April 05, 2001.


Skip

Have a glass of Bush's BEVERAGE. Make it strong and all your problems will go away.

Does it really make sense to base the future on things that are limited like gas and oil?

-- M. DiVel (obviousman2002@Yahoo.com), April 05, 2001.


Julie, here are the results of a quick scan I did online of the voting and various recounts conducted in Florida:

Election Night: Bush Wins Automatic State-wide Recount: Bush Wins Second State-Wide Recount: Bush Wins Palm-Beach Post sponsored recount (Jan 14) Bush Wins Miami Herald sponsored recount (Feb 25) Bush Wins Statewide recount of all Florida undervotes (April 4) Bush Wins

However, the last recount listed above also included one alternate scenario whereby Gore might have won by 6 votes, which is what you are basing your claim on.

Of course, none of this surprises me. In spite of recount after recount proving conclusively that Bush won, I knew all it would take would be one single claim from one single source that Gore might have actually won, and Democrats would then seize upon that as iron-clad proof that Bush is not the legitimate president.

If you and like-minded individuals want to spend the next 4 years being bitter and continually re-fighting the election in your minds, you're welcome to do so. As for me, I'm looking forward to at least 4, and preferably 8, years of honesty and integrity in the White House.

-- Brett (brettinokla@aol.com), April 06, 2001.


Hey Brett, funny , I didn't find anything remotely 'bitter' in what Julie said!

But I did appreciate your posting these words: "As for me, I'm looking forward to at least 4, and preferably 8, years of honesty and integrity in the White House."

I always like to start the day out with a bit of humor. Thanks!

-- Earthmama (earthmama48@yahoo.com), April 06, 2001.


Anyone who is still going around claiming Gore actually won the election is bitter, beyond all doubt.

As for the rest of it, glad it brightened your day. At least the fact that Bush is President makes us both smile.

-- Brett (brettinokla@aol.com), April 06, 2001.


Wrong again Brett. I am not bitter -- disgusted, yes. I am a realist, and someone who believes in fair play in spite of the tricks that members of BOTH the dominating parties got up to. But I don't see how sweeping it under the rug and forgetting about it will teach Americans anything about the 'character' of our new *ahem* 'president'. I've already seen his character at work, and I know that we'd all better keep a careful eye on him.

-- julie f. (rumplefrogskin@excite.com), April 06, 2001.

In this post stephen referred to me as a socialist.I've always thought I was a capitolist with a conscience.He also stated envirmentalist want control not trees.Some of us want both.I always try to control myself not to insult others.It weakens ones point,which may be a good one, and shows lack of being able to control oneself.Also if the sports utility veicle tax seems socialist,then we most have a socialist gov't,they also (extra )tax cigarettes,alcohol,and coffee,making those Items much more expensive then if they were just treated like food,or other household items.An uninformed public has always been our worlds leaders greastest asset.May we try to educate each other not insult.Why did my mother give me a name someone else was already using?

-- Steve (a12goat@cs.com), April 06, 2001.

How about just raising the federal gas tax a bit and dedicating that money to things like solar and fuel cell research?

-- ray s (mmoetc@yahoo.com), April 07, 2001.

I like that idea Ray. Bet plenty others wouldn't agree though.

-- Joy F (So.Central Wisconsin) (CatFlunky@excite.com), April 07, 2001.

But Joy, isn't that what makes this country great. Many don't have to agree, just enough. Time to call Russ and Herb and get their heads out of the campaign finance mess and into something that can really help.

-- ray s (mmoetc@yahoo.com), April 08, 2001.

actually i did not say anyone in particular was a sosialist. but the eviromentalists do push sosialist ideas. and yes the the usa is becoming more socialist by the day. my point is and was that those people want to control what others do and that is wrong..... encourage people to do what you think is right and i have no problems with that. whether you want to stop every logger out there from cutting down trees or stop selling gas. you have a right to believe that and try to convince others to go along with you, you propose to use the govermant to punish those who diagree with you and that is a problem. i think conservation is great and i would like to have the time and money to spend to become more conservation minded. but the reality of todays world dictates that i have to compromise. so what i say to all those earth first folks is the earth was here before i was born and will be here for eons to come no matter what i do. also i feel that i must point out that oil exists naturally in the world and in some places has come to the suface by itself. so how can that be fatal to the world. exxon was and should have been punished for lax standards and lazy crewman. but i should point out that oil can and is broken down in nature there are several types of microscopic bacteria that eat the oil and they are used in clean up. also it should be noted that in the last ten years or so nature has cleaned it self up and will continue to do so. yes it is ugly and yes we should try to keep it from happening again. but what do you want to do to stop it. some would propose banning all oil and others would stop all progress in the world. the new prez, would do well to respect the enviroment but not at the cost of furthing socialism in my country. this could be done by making it profitable to run a "clean business" or find new technology to curb our needs for fosil fuels. i would like him to spend time to consider that the long term solutions require investments that may not pay a dividned for years. like what british petrolium is doing now by working to make solar cells better. we all would benifit from that. think about it.

-- stephen (speaktothesky1@home.com), April 09, 2001.

you guys are really on to something! we should just have taxes raised on everything we don't like. so i don't like eggs, lets raise the tax on eggs. or yeah i know how about i don't like straw homes lets tax them to tax straw. yes then we can move on to taxing churches and other groups. you see the right and ability to tax is the right to control. and i want control. i want to control all those who don't do as i want. you think i am be funny but i am not that is the logical conclusion to those ideas. to tax is to control and to control is to have socialism or even dictatorship. people should do as they feel led not forced. so... yes lets tax them all why not tax ted kennedy for the retirement fund he stole from us like he wants to tax people out of their socialism security... oops i mean social security. then lets get trent lott to explain why sent factories to mexico is such a good idea, i know they pay the bills, taxes anyone? g.w.bush should and can encourage good reponsible behaviors but to tax others into compliance smells like something is rotten.

-- steve (katn92sk@aol.com), April 11, 2001.

I'm sorry, but i'm 16 and when i am old enough to have kids and my kids have kids of their own, i want them to live long and healthy lives. If we keep feeding ourselves rat poison thinking it isnt doing anything to us now, just think of our future generations. And how much oil will we really be getting out of drilling in Alaska, one year's supply!! That is all!! And we want to risk killing/wiping out a species over one year's supply of oil. I'm sorry, i'll get my own solar panals and windmills, if the government doesnt do it, who will. And if the government wants to kill species that IT ITSELF!! protects and keeps alive, then what else will they go after! Our own air supply?? Come on people, stand up for something you believe in, if it takes laying down in a road to stop oil trucks from coming in Alaska so be it!! Just do something, before we kill ourself!!

-- Heather (pepis_infatuation@hotmail.com), May 02, 2001.

Isnt it funny that people who refuse to commit suicide think there are still too many people alive on this earth? Wont someone please volunteer to remedy the situation? If no volunteers will step forward, will the government need to get involved taking steps to lower the population? Please, for the sake of our freedom and that of our kids, wont you environ-'mental'-ists just go do the right thing for the sake of dear mother earth?

-- daffodyllady (daffodyllady@yahoo.com), May 02, 2001.

Heather, It's really great to see that people your age are concerned about where this environment is headed. It gives me hope for the future of my granddaughter!! I only wish my son (her father) was as concerned as you seem to be. I thought this thread was dead, but you've revived my hopes. Thanks for responding!

-- Marcia (HrMr@webtv.net), May 02, 2001.

I like the way this is going. Putting all our marbles in a basket with a hole in the bottom really makes sense. How long have we been importing timber products? Did you know we were? What happens when the oil runs out(not if). It would be nice to start planning now, instead of when it is gone. The last thing we need on this poor planet is more people. More people means more food, housing, water, air, and energy will be needed also.

Having kids is easy, but being responsable is hard.

-- memnoch DiVel (obviousman2002@yahoo.com), May 03, 2001.


Memnoch DiVel...I truely believe that our govt. has the capability to develop alternative energy, especially wind and solar. But the big oil companies seem to have all the say. I, for one, would not mind paying more for energy if I knew it came from a renewable resource!

-- Marcia (HrMr@webtv.net), May 03, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ