OldPoleBurner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > It's an issue we're too simple minded to
> comprehend . . .
>
> Yes indeed; its just one more example of ignorant
> americans "clinging to guns and religion" - - that
> these elitists from the lowly ms. Esq. -- to the
> very top of their presidential ticket, keep
> ranting about.

Whoa, a political rant on this board? Complete with Republican talking points? There is a famous video of Bush speaking to a bunch of very wealthy people (Bush said, "...the haves, and the have mores...") and calling them "his base."

[www.youtube.com]

The history of elites is the history of money. Interestingly, education does not always guarantee money.

But somehow the GOP is trying to define elites as people with education: do not look behind the curtain at the Wall Street types running the GOP--no, look at those elites who want to take your guns!!!!



>
> Come to think of it, didn't some pinko commie
> (please take note note of my appalling ignorance
> there) say something along those same lines -
> something about religion being the "Opiate of the
> Masses"?
>
> Indeed he did! I just looked it up on Wikipedia.
> It was Karl Marx! - actually; ranting about why
> people were not interested in his reforms, blaming
> it on religion numbing the people, so that they
> couldn't feel the pain of their own oppression.
> That is why all communist nations tried to ban the
> practice of any religion. And Indeed; it was
> religion, combined with a tougher than tough
> cold-war opponent that finally brought them down.

Huh? This must be an allusion to Reagan. Almost no one who has studied the fall of the Soviet Union believes it was Reagan. The Soviet economy was bankrupted by the fall in oil prices in the '80's.

[obsidianwings.blogs.com]

Did you know that Reagan did not go to church? Religion has nothing to do with, except as a GOP talking point.

[query.nytimes.com]

>
> My point? Only that these elitists have nothing
> against the NCRA per se; but that the NCRA is
> being used to further a hidden political agenda -
> it is not to protect the environment. Thus we
> see continuous interference with virtually every
> public or private project intended to facilitate
> commerce; even those helpful to the environment,
> such as railroads.
>
> It is indeed beginning to become transparent.
> Even us unwashed ignoramuses can put two and two
> together now and then - and we do see the emerging
> pattern here. It is those "me-too elitists", such
> as ms Esq, who have been educated beyond their
> intelligence, that don't seem to get it!
>
> From a real environmental science standpoint, they
> are way over the top with their extremist junk
> science, such as MTBE, ethanol use, oil production
> restrictions, etc, etc, etc. The list is legion!
> These have caused enormous economic dislocation
> and worldwide food shortages and hunger - indeed
> much human suffering. I can't even begin to
> imagine the economic and environmental harm that
> their global warming policies will bring - not to
> mention the human suffering.

MTBE was a replacement for lead. It was a poor choice we learned later. Perhaps you think we should have stayed with lead in the air?

Ethanol? Republicans back it--it is key part of the GOP keeping the farmers in their base. (And it is true that the Dems are guilty here too. But the environmentalists have been telling us the truth about ethanol for a long time.)

>
> Moreover, they have not helped the environment one
> iota, but have instead seriously hurt it. Much
> California ground water has already been poisoned
> by MTBE (without any improvement in air quality -
> while wasting fuel besides). They also forgot
> that alcohol production releases enormous amounts
> of carbon-dioxide (the environmental scapegoat de
> jure ) into the atmosphere. And I won't even
> mention that if we produced our own oil, we would
> have no need for military force to keep commercial
> lanes in the middle east open. We could have
> left that to the bumbling Europeans to bumble for
> themselves.

OK, so we should have kept the lead, and the fact that ice is melting is no cause for alarm. This reminds me of mining companies that promise to clean up after themselves (don't worry, nothing bad will happen, trust us!), then declare bankruptcy after the profits are had. I wonder which party the mining companies support?

Can we really take the risk of ignoring global warming? What if we are wrong?

And even Bush's Energy Department agrees that US oil reserves could never support our economy for any length of time. But "Drill baby, drill" comes easy to the GOP.

[www.eia.doe.gov]

>
> It is a sad fact; that the environmental movement
> has been thoroughly and completely hijacked (so
> has the whole country). The father of
> conservationism, John Muir, is rolling in his
> grave. An otherwise good cause is being used to
> hide an otherwise obvious socialist agenda. How?
> According to Karl Marx, anything that helps bring
> about the collapse of capitalist economies,
> furthers the cause. They may not be achieving any
> environmental benefit; but they sure do seem to be
> achieving old Karl's agenda. And they will
> continue to do so;

It is too bad that the last Teddy Roosevelt Republican went extinct in California with Earl Warren. Trying to claim the legacy of Muir--who did not want to build anything near anybody--is pretty rich coming from Republican talking points.

So let's agree that when we rant we use facts and not just take the fax that comes from Fox News and Limbaugh.

At least we agree that NIMBY is running riot in Marin.