Ah, the term "endangered species" takes a whole new meaning with Bush & Co in charge of things now doesn't?

Link
Wow I am impressed! I had no idea so many of my representatives were speed reading geniuses! No wonder people voted for them! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Link

How dare those congressional auditors find little evidence that military training is hampered by enviromental laws! They should know better! Bush & Co. are always right! We oughta round up those auditors as well as those loony enviromental-nuts and send them to re-education camp! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

From the first link:
"Does anybody trust Donald Rumsfeld to save the whales?" asked Gerald Leape, vice president of the National Environmental Trust. "This means ... more freedom for the Department of Defense to do whatever it wants and not be burdened by working through our nation's most important law to protect marine mammals."

Uh, hell no I don't trust him period! Every time I look at that guy or hear him speak, I know he's lying and hiding something. Dang bass. This sonar testing had been done in my backyard. Our people have done testing and provided proof to the government that the sonar was harming the mammals. Yet they don't care. It's more important to them to find ways to kill and destroy, than to preserve life. Well that's the way I see it. Peace. [img]smile.gif[/img]

i'm with you, GForce. one need look no further than the when (2am) and the how (712 page document referencing countless other legislation) to know that a) there was no real debate on the issues, and b) it was rubber stamped by bush's party.

Piece of shit assholes.

Arrrgggghhh, some days I'm so angry at the administration.... arrrrggghh!

Selfish idiots are running this country. They obviously can't think more than 5 minutes ahead of time. I'm all for taking reasonable steps to protect ourselves, but reasonable ended over a year ago -- about the time we went to a real country and made real war for imaginary reasons and gossamer "terrorist links" that turn out to be no more than ignorant oil-monket speculative twattle.

Erm, do I seem :mad: ? I guess I am.

I don't give a rat's ass about these animals. I'm more interested in the defense of this country, which is Rumsfelds only job, not worrying about some damn fish or aquatic mammals. The safety of the American people should always come first for our government.

Yeah, righto. Don't forget # 1! Rape, pillage, and pave the planet for our own good. Damn Straight! It'd be nice if some day these animals got to hold YOUR fate in THEIR hand, now, wouldn't it. ;)

I wouldn't be hitting you with such biting sarcasm if Rootin-tootin-Rummy and crew were really being wise in their actions. They're not, and we are no more safe than before. Their whole response is to grab a bunch of tanks and planes, go cruising around the planet willy-nilly in them, shoot a few darker-skinned folks, and claim victory. It's a shame, and we're dumb if we buy their load of BS.

[ 11-09-2003, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

i read a fascinating piece of fiction called "plague of angels" by sherri tepper ( http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books ).

one of the central ideas of the book is a future society who believes it is their manifest destiny to dominate and control nature. they have a process in place for the re-engineering of planets away from their "natural" state into a more "human-friendly" paved and built up state.

tepper is a bit preachy, but it paints of fascinating picture of "what if..." we followed the thinking you recommend to its natural conclusion, k-man.

I call this "here and now," or haven't you paid attention to government agencies like the Forestry Service and how they define their missions for the past 50 years?

hey, i agree with you timber. [img]smile.gif[/img]

i think a lot of people dont see the big picture of what we're doing. a thought exercise such as tepper's future society really hammers it home.

Defense against who? Terrorists? Last time i checked they didnt use subs. So why spend millions of dollars on an improved sonar system for defense against an enemy that doesnt exist? Or is it that they might exist in the future (got to watch out for china), so lets prepare now? Well I am sick of Governments continually playing on peoples fears, they have done it for 1000s of years and they will do it for another 1000 if we keep buying their BS. If Governments would spend 1/4 of what they spend on defense we wouldnt need to be afraid of that other guy. How about spending some of that defense budget money on the root causes of hatred/terrorim; a lack of understanding/prejudice (education - wake up John Howard!), injustices (israel/palestine conflict), religious tension (education/tolerance), government corruption, poverty, starvation etc.

How about the Chinese Dragon Lord? We'll need it against them. And who's to say that the Russians won't return to a more authoritarian government. It looks like that might very well be possible. And besides, it's not like this sonar is run 24/7. A sub normally runs on it's passive sonar. If this new one is as powerful as they say then it will probably only be used in a combat situation. Because using it will be like telling your prey that you have them in your sights. They also will know where you are.

And I never said I was against preserving wild life. I just put a higher value on human life. Whales are in far more danger from the Norwegians and Icelanders than the subs and ships of the US Navy. And let's not forget the Japanese and their "whale research".

You're stretching worse than Rummy to justify that an enemy actually exists. ;) Let us hope you are right.
Which is where I differ from you, and most of my fellow hairless monkees. I recognize my extreme weirdness on this point. Too true, at least on the Japs AFAIK. Please don't confuse dolphins and whales, though. ;)

Completely off topic:

Don't suppose you've ever read "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" Timber? Its quite interesting, and comes to pretty much the same conclusion you appear to have done about animals and humans. Basically that as we are constantly motivated in our relationships by self interest we cannot appraise our internal goodness or badness by studying them. Instead we can only appraise our conduct by looking at our relationships with those who have absolutely no power at all, as only then do we have no self-interested motivation. And the only sentient beings with absolutely no power? Animals. So the only way we can know if a person is good or bad is by studying their treatment of animals.

Not sure I entirely agree, but its an interesting point nonetheless. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 11-10-2003, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Barry the Sprout ]

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">I think the entire world should prepare for invasion. Who's to say that the US will not have a more authoritarian government in the future. Wait a minute, the one they have now is pretty authoritarian and is a disaster in the making.

On a side note I was watching "Legally Blond 2", despite me only find certain bits funny it did have a very powerful message especially with the kind of BS mentality going on in the white house right now.</font>

[ 11-10-2003, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Completely off topic:

Don't suppose you've ever read "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" Timber? Its quite interesting, and comes to pretty much the same conclusion you appear to have done about animals and humans. Basically that as we are constantly motivated in our relationships by self interest we cannot appraise our internal goodness or badness by studying them. Instead we can only appraise our conduct by looking at our relationships with those who have absolutely no power at all, as only then do we have no self-interested motivation. And the only sentient beings with absolutely no power? Animals. So the only way we can know if a person is good or bad is by studying their treatment of animals.

Not sure I entirely agree, but its an interesting point nonetheless. [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]On a related note, I vaguely remember that even the Bible tells us that a society is judged not by how it treats its most privileged members, but by how it treats the least privileged members. I just put animals in with humans as fellow "lesser privileged" creatures. Except predatory birds and dolphins -- they're cooler than we ever could be. ;)

It really pisses me off that science (or whatever category a congressional study falls under) appears to have been ignored with regards to military training being effected by current enviromental laws. If it it wasn't broke, why fix it at the expense of the habitat's of endangered species?

This is nothing more than a manifestation of the "I know better"(regardless of fact) mentality that permeates the culture in currently in power.

The otherthing that really pisses me off is the lack of objective oversight with regards to the use of sonar. A more limited provision that would have allowed for it's use during wartime or a national security threat was rejected in favor of giving total, unfettered, deregulated control to the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, whom I trust as far as I could toss an Abrams tank.
Here it is from the first link:
It has not been proven that either of these measures are absolutley neccessary for national security. Saying otherwise is just empty rhetoric unless it is backed up with something more substantial than imaginary potential enemies.

As long as Bush and his administration stays on board, ie, gets re-elected, this country and World will lose alot more than just endangered species. There are other issues at risk with them at the helm.

You wanna get really angry, then know that in environmental law the words "national security" operate to make ANYTHING secret. A good thing, right? Well, who do you think put the PCBs in the Hudson, and worse, who put the plutonium in it? Can we say nuclear naval bases? Can we say now abandoned? Can we say somebody else's problem? Can we say irresponsibility? I thought we could. Good class.

timber for president! [img]graemlins/balloons.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thewave.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/laughsaywhat.gif[/img]

but seriously, the left lacks just this passion and voice. onya timber [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Thanks, Sultan, but I'd make a horrible politician.... For the same reason I often find myself in trouble at work. I simply shoot straight and say what I mean and mean what I say -- which appears to be a fatal flaw these days. ;) :(

Hmmm, you sound just like Howard Dean (that's a compliment BTW)! If we had more politicians who say what they mean I think we'd be better off! [img]smile.gif[/img]


Mark

[ 11-11-2003, 04:59 AM: Message edited by: skywalker ]

exactly, skywalker!

the unfortunate result of democratic politics is that we have people in power whose role is to get themselves re-elected - which does not necessarily equate to doing what's best for the country.

Inevitably, *being* in D.C. is all about *staying* in D.C. If we paid them real "public servant" wages instead of -- what is it now, like $300K? (plus junkets plus contributions plus gifts plus plus plus) -- maybe we'd get better, more dedicated folks.