See other Miscellaneous Articles
Title: Picture Of Big Tree
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 8, 2010
Author: unknown
Post Date: 2010-03-08 03:34:45 by wudidiz
Keywords: None
Views: 1136
Comments: 109
(1 image)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: wudidiz (#0)
Nice, but who ae thjose red clad men in her? As a forst activist I naturally distrust people in red wearing hardhats. They usually have chain saws in their crummy. Are they Freddies?
This is all the information I have now.
OK. I have a natural worry reflex in regards to trees.
Do you live in a house? What about table and chairs. Do you own any?
Nice looking tree. It looks like time for harvesting.
Yep. Trees are renewable resources which can be harvested like any other crop. My best friend and his family used to be in the logging business and I have a lot of respect for the folks who do that. Most are super nice people and the work they do is very hard. Even the big outfits that have really up to date stuff to work with still have to deal with things that require someone to do some hard labor.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. You can't tell it from this picture but this is one of the biggest Poplar trees in the US. Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. I am not agai8st logging. I am however against not leaving reserves that allow natural forests to exist unmolestd by human beings. The belief system that all things living have a basic right to live their complete lifespan, and to develop into the sort of mix of trees and webs of life they would achieve naturally without human interference is called 'Deep Ecology,' and I am a rock solid proponent of this. And even where we log, I oppose taking too much, and most definately oppose clear cutting. More them how much capital can be generated by instrimentalizing a living thing into am commodity should be a factor in how our species does business on this planet.
People see things through their own prisms. My friend and his family didn't do any clear cutting that I know of, only cut trees which were ready to be harvested. And that is good for the forest not to leave it so thick that a lightning strike will set it on fire and have all the ready made kindling it needs in old, dead and diseased trees. Trees are a renewable resource just as I said earlier. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with harvesting them just like you would corn or beans.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. No such thing sweetie. Clear cutting has its place. It can be used as a positive environmental tool. That's the problem I have with enviros as a whole. They are opposed to things without thought. They base their opposition on emotion rather than science.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." I don't agree with the way our culture builds, sculpts and otherwise trashes this planet. There are far too many human beings to say we live responsibly in an ecological niche as we should. I prefer something like a yurt to a house, but know we are never going to get rid of all buildings as we know them. I have done construction when younger and needed a job and seem how contractors cut corners to the point they are wasteful and create structures that broke down because they didn't do things right. I find that sort of crime irresponsible and points to a systemic flaw in the concept of capitalism.
Not now, but our invader culture came here to what we call the Americas and found such things and trashed them in a criminal and irresponsible manner I find disgusting. We need to learn from our mistakes and to get our boots off of the throats of the ecosystems we are trashing and destroying. Nature is forgiving and can recover from what we have done to it. And I profoundly believe tht unless we do so we will crsh and burn as a species because we could not ultimately stop population growth and by natural attrition return to a level of population that is reasonable, and learn how not to be so greedy and materialistic.
Not ever. The forests have always been managed by aboriginal people much like the grasslands of Australia. Pretending it didn't happen doesn't make it so. Truth is our forests are over grown and unhealthy. The garden needs tending. It was no accident that the worst part of the Biscuit fire was in the "wilderness" areas.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." you didn't answer the question.
But the forest primeval there before the Buscuit fire was fine and self sustaining with fire a natural component in the ecosystem there. And yes, humans as a natural component of ecosystems have a right to change and influence things. But what I believe we are disagreeing with here is the scope and degree that influence and change should be allowed.
Because it is immaterial to the point of the argument. People are always going to have such possessions and there is nothing wrong with that. What I am arguing is that their is a sytemic flaw to how we raze the landscape taking it all just because we can make a buck on it. I argue for balance that takes other things into consideration, not just works to promote greed and irresponsible pillging of everything alive, or what life needs to survive.
Yes it would be nice if things could be done for altruistic reasons but what are the odds. So better to go with human nature than to fight it. Elephants are doing better in areas that exploit them. And the exploitation is done for profit. Same could be done with forest management and is being done by native tribes. Too bad enviros don't get it. Profits give people reasons to give a shit. Why should you care about their motivations as long as it is getting done? Because enviros continue to harp on motivations rather than results it can only be assumed that the environment is not their true goal but social engineering. Using the environment for social engineering is more disgusting than using the forest for profit. WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO TELL ME HOW TO LIVE? This puts the lie to their other leftie beliefs about live and let live, everybody inclusive. This only applies to people who live the way the left want.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." I am someone watching how we as a culture are ripping apart the structure of life causing extinction and soiling our own nest. Whenever someone's life intrudes in the existance of all life, there is a responsibility to interfer and stop this. It is the moral thing to do, and I know this so deeply to the core of my being I would die deending my belief system. In fact, I as an individual nearly did just that already in July 1998, which gives strong reason never to doubt that.
Well, the answer is simple. Get all your like-minded friends together, pool your money, and buy all the forests. Yeah, buy them, not petition the government to make laws about what people can do with their own property. And after you and said friends buy the forests then you can let them become whatever overgrown mess you want them to be.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. how many humans would have to be exterminated so as to be a comfortable number for you, and will you go first?
Good question. buckeroo is always yammering about there being far too many people too but as yet has not evidenced any desire or told us of any plan to lessen it by offing himself. None of the people who are always the loudest about "overpopulation" seem to be willing to do their part to decrease it.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. That is because we are aware of our surroundings in such a way that ensures the future of mankind.
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1977
Oh bs, buck. You and millions more just like you don't ensure any such thing. It is hard to imagine the level of chutzpah it requires to claim such a thing.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Unlike the 6.7BN people on this planet fucking all day and night creating an ever increasing birth rate straining the planet about any of our social/cultural and environmental systems, some of us use contraceptives because we know there is a choice.
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1977
LOL! I don't believe there are anywhere near that many people doing it all day and night. Your crowd must have a lot more stamina than most people. And I know for sure you talk more $#it than most people.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. It doesn't look "funny" from my perspective.
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1977
Well, we have tried to e the high bidder in a timber sale and been refused being told the point was to spend more tax payer dollars in road construction then is made selling the timber to corporations for a lower price than the cost of road building. Besides, the paradigm is faulty, and need systemic change to it besides allowing the Nature Conservancy to buy up and preserve land.
It is more obvious those in power with no will to handle the huge increase in human population are more inclined to kill off people through disease, starvation and war. People such as me believe a reduction of birthrate and the normal attrition through mortality is quite sufficient to control the human cancer the planet suffers from, to draw an analogy to a disease you are sure to hate, but is accurate.
Maybe you should lighten up a bit. And maybe you should stop worrying about what other people do or don't do. Has any of this overpopulation you are always yammering about taken one bite of food off your table? Ever caused you to not be able to get clean drinking water and/or all the liquor you could hold? I thought not.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. I would assume from that response that "we" (whoever we were) were in fact NOT the high bidder. Can't expect to get something for nothing.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. We were indeed the highest bidder. The big was refused based on our desire to buy the sale, and not log it.
That sounds quite insane. The planet doesn't suffer. Do you actually believe that earth, water and rocks have feelings? Get help.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Well, obviously they wanted to thin out the forest and sell the mature timber. Your buying it and allowing it to become an overgrown mess and full of tinder for the next lightning strike helps no one and kills lots of animals too.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. So, you are an advocate of, "lets have a BIG_HUGE_GOVERNMENT" to control these lazy fucking slobs that don't take personal repsonsibilities for themselves or the world around them, 'eh? Yes. Yes.
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1977
No. In that particular sale, they wanted clear cuts with a few 'leave' trees. My point was that one can certainly try to use money to buy back what Babylon has stolen, but if it does not fit into their paradigm, they won't necessarily go along with it. As I am sure that regardless of what the Nature Conservancy has squirreled away, if the system wants to steal it back, they most certainly will.
Anyone who has ever read as many as five of my posts should know that I actually HATE big government with a blinding passion. As for the rest of your post I think you are pulling my leg. I don't believe for one minute that you are starving or thirsting to death. Especially not the latter.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Well, perhaps the answer would be for you and your like minded associates to come up with the money to buy the property BEFORE there is any talk of cutting a tree on it. I think y'all should work 22 hours a day or more on that project. Don't be a slacker, give till it hurts.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. And even where we log, I oppose taking too much, and most definately oppose clear cutting. More them how much capital can be generated by instrimentalizing a living thing into am commodity should be a factor in how our species does business on this planet. As a Conservationist we are not as far apart on this one as we may be on other issues. While I do not harbor a burning hatred for them the companies that irresponsibly, sanctioned by government, clear cut and destroy large sections of forest for private gain are, in my opinion, beyond despicable. I don't have any links handy but I recall ten or fifteen years ago looking at Landsat Photos of Mt. Hood. It had been more denuded than the Amazon Rain Forest. The logging companies, and their accomplices at the Forest Service, have gotten smart about it though. Since most people don't drive off the highway they are leaving an uncut band next to the highway and then decimating the forest beyond the view of the traveling public. As well monoculture forests are not healthy forests. If the logging companies had their way all that would be planted are varieties they can harvest and sell. Whereas a healthy natural forest will have a diversity of trees, shrubbery, and the wildlife that depends on them. Thankfully we do have some other interests who are finding that former forest management practices are goring their Ox i.e., Commercial Salmon Fisherman. Sport Fisherman, and Hunters. Denuded Stream Banks and tributaries increased Salmon Fry mortality to a level that resulted in that resource not replenishing at its former rate, and the stocks of the beautiful High Desert Red Band Trout were depleted to near extinction in some streams. To some they look at a forest and see only dollar signs. I see beauty and the wonder of the natural world. An old growth forest in its natural state is a bountiful system benefiting both man and animal.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Approximately one million people died and a million more emigrated from Ireland. [4] The proximate cause of famine was a potato disease commonly known as potato blight. In the forty years that followed the union, successive British governments grappled with the problems of governing a country which had, as Benjamin Disraeli put it in 1844, "a starving population, an absentee aristocracy, and an alien Church, and in addition the weakest executive in the world."[11] One historian calculated that between 1801 and 1845, there had been 114 commissions and 61 special committees inquiring into the state of Ireland and that "without exception their findings prophesied disaster; Ireland was on the verge of starvation, her population rapidly increasing, three-quarters of her labourers unemployed, housing conditions appalling and the standard of living unbelievably low." The potato was introduced to Ireland as a garden crop of the gentry. By the late seventeenth century it had become widespread as a supplementary rather than a principal food, as the main diet still revolved around butter, milk and grain products. In the first two decades of the eighteenth century, however, it became a base food of the poor, especially in winter.[23] The expansion of the economy between 1760 and 1815 saw the potato make inroads in the diet of the people and become a staple food all the year round for the cottier and small farm class. In 1847, midway through the Great Irish Famine (1845–1849), a group of American Indian Choctaws collected $710 (although many articles say the original amount was $170 after a misprint in Angie Debo's The Rise and Fall of the Choctaw Republic) and sent it to help starving Irish men, women and children. "It had been just 16 years since the Choctaw people had experienced the Trail of Tears, and they had faced starvation... It was an amazing gesture." Great Famine (Ireland) wikipedia think it cant happen here, once we dont have enough oil to plow, plant, fertilize, control pests, harvest and ship our crops, which are monocultures (after all, you're obligated to grow the most profitable species) especially susceptible to blights because of their genetic sameness?
Dude, the title to public land is not for sale. If you want it, you have to raise money and consensus to change the law to put it on sale, then you have to competre on the open market for it. Hence, forget about it. The cost to benefit ratio is not workable.
Comments (41 - 109) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Ferret (#1)
"It has been said, 'time heals all wounds'. I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens. But it is never gone." ~ Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy
#3. To: wudidiz (#2)
#4. To: Ferret (#1)
Nice, but who ae thjose red clad men in her? As a forst activist I naturally distrust people in red wearing hardhats. They usually have chain saws in their crummy. Are they Freddies?
#5. To: wudidiz (#0)
#6. To: A K A Stone (#5)
Lord Acton
#7. To: wudidiz (#0)
Lord Acton
#8. To: James Deffenbach, A K A Stone (#6)
#9. To: Ferret (#8)
Lord Acton
#10. To: Ferret, James Deffenbach, A K A Stone (#8)
(Edited)
I am however against not leaving reserves that allow natural forests to exist unmolestd by human beings.
And even where we log, I oppose taking too much, and most definately oppose clear cutting.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#11. To: A K A Stone (#4)
"Do you live in a house? What about table and chairs. Do you own any?"
#12. To: farmfriend (#10)
#13. To: Ferret (#12)
Not now
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#14. To: Ferret (#11)
"Do you live in a house? What about table and chairs. Do you own any?"
The only real restraint on gummints is people who say "live free or die" ... and mean it. - Enderby
#15. To: farmfriend (#13)
#16. To: Critter (#14)
"you didn't answer the question."
#17. To: Ferret (#12)
and learn how not to be so greedy and materialistic.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#18. To: farmfriend (#17)
"WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO TELL ME HOW TO LIVE?"
#19. To: Ferret (#15)
And yes, humans as a natural component of ecosystems have a right to change and influence things. But what I believe we are disagreeing with here is the scope and degree that influence and change should be allowed.
Lord Acton
#20. To: Ferret (#11)
There are far too many human beings to say we live responsibly in an ecological niche as we should.
computer counted ballots are ballots that have been counted in secret, and with all probability not the way one voted.
#21. To: IRTorqued, buckeroo (#20)
how many humans would have to be exterminated so as to be a comfortable number for you, and will you go first?
Lord Acton
#22. To: James Deffenbach (#21)
None of the people who are always the loudest about "overpopulation" seem to be willing to do their part to decrease it.
#23. To: buckeroo (#22)
That is because we are aware of our surroundings in such a way that ensures the future of mankind.
Lord Acton
#24. To: James Deffenbach (#23)
Oh bs, buck.
#25. To: buckeroo (#24)
Lord Acton
#26. To: James Deffenbach (#25)
#27. To: James Deffenbach (#19)
"Well, the answer is simple. Get all your like-minded friends together, pool your money, and buy all the forests. Yeah, buy them, not petition the government to make laws about what people can do with their own property. And after you and said friends buy the forests then you can let them become whatever overgrown mess you want them to be."
#28. To: James Deffenbach (#21)
"Good question. buckeroo is always yammering about there being far too many people too but as yet has not evidenced any desire or told us of any plan to lessen it by offing himself. None of the people who are always the loudest about "overpopulation" seem to be willing to do their part to decrease it."
#29. To: buckeroo (#26)
It doesn't look "funny" from my perspective.
Lord Acton
#30. To: Ferret (#27)
Well, we have tried to e the high bidder in a timber sale
Lord Acton
#31. To: James Deffenbach (#30)
#32. To: Ferret (#28)
People such as me believe a reduction of birthrate and the normal attrition through mortality is quite sufficient to control the human cancer the planet suffers from, to draw an analogy to a disease you are sure to hate, but is accurate.
Lord Acton
#33. To: Ferret (#31)
Lord Acton
#34. To: James Deffenbach (#29)
And maybe you should stop worrying about what other people do or don't do.
Has any of this overpopulation you are always yammering about taken one bite of food off your table?
Ever caused you to not be able to get clean drinking water and/or all the liquor you could hold?
#35. To: James Deffenbach (#33)
#36. To: buckeroo (#34)
Lord Acton
#37. To: Ferret (#35)
Lord Acton
#38. To: Ferret, A K A Stone (#8)
I am not agai8st logging. I am however against not leaving reserves that allow natural forests to exist unmolestd by human beings. The belief system that all things living have a basic right to live their complete lifespan, and to develop into the sort of mix of trees and webs of life they would achieve naturally without human interference is called 'Deep Ecology,' and I am a rock solid proponent of this.
#39. To: James Deffenbach (#29)
taken one bite of food off your table?
The Great Famine (Irish: an Gorta Mór, IPA: [Ynà ÈaT~àtàY ÈmàoÐ~à], the Great Hunger[1]; an Drochshaol, [Ynà Èdà~TxÌhiÐlà], the Bad Life) was a period of mass starvation, disease and emigration in Ireland between 1845 and 1852[2] during which the island's population dropped by 20 to 25 percent.[3]
#40. To: James Deffenbach (#37)
.
.
.