We MUST Stop the Forest Fires! - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-22-2002, 11:08 PM   #21
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 05:26 AM
Normal

Yay.
__________________

pax is offline  
Old 08-22-2002, 11:19 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 01:26 AM
hey, i'm replying here, what happened

Bubba, I am sorry, I disagree with you. Since the inception of this country citizens have been free to criticize elected officials. It began with George Washington and continued with every president, thereafter. I could use the search and find things posted about Democrats as bad or worse, but who cares.

It is called free speech. That thread (5 things) was poorly conceived, Clinton had eight years with time enough to have real accomplishments. W has less to show because he has only had 18 months.

The mods do a fine job in here. I know the conservatives are outnumbered. That is the nature of the U2 fan base. The answer is not to kill free speech. The answer is to make reasonable, unemotional arguments, like U2Alabama.

Just my thoughts here.
__________________

deep is offline  
Old 08-23-2002, 03:00 AM   #23
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 08:26 PM
Whortense-Controlled-Backburning is your answer, dears!
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 08-23-2002, 07:32 AM   #24
The Fly
 
GOP-Controlled Whortense's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: America's Best Christian
Posts: 55
Local Time: 05:26 AM
My God...get a sense of humor!

Do I REALLY think that Bush is going to cut down all the trees? NO. I am a writer, you silly people, and I was imagining a SNL-type sketch.

Let me get this straight--ANYTIME I post as ANY of the Whortenses, IT IS NOT SERIOUS! Apparently, several people here cannot accept a joke against their politicians. It is NOT like I'm insulting someone's nationality or ethnicity.

How many Clinton blow job jokes did I have to endure? MANY. I often complained, because they were thrown in with otherwise serious political threads. THIS, however, is a joke. It was MEANT to be a joke. Rebut it all the hell you want, but you aren't going to get a serious rebuttal from me, because IT IS A JOKE.

Geez...
GOP-Controlled Whortense is offline  
Old 08-23-2002, 09:37 AM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 7,604
Local Time: 05:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by GOP-Controlled Whortense
My God...get a sense of humor!

Do I REALLY think that Bush is going to cut down all the trees? NO. I am a writer, you silly people, and I was imagining a SNL-type sketch.

Let me get this straight--ANYTIME I post as ANY of the Whortenses, IT IS NOT SERIOUS! Apparently, several people here cannot accept a joke against their politicians. It is NOT like I'm insulting someone's nationality or ethnicity.

How many Clinton blow job jokes did I have to endure? MANY. I often complained, because they were thrown in with otherwise serious political threads. THIS, however, is a joke. It was MEANT to be a joke. Rebut it all the hell you want, but you aren't going to get a serious rebuttal from me, because IT IS A JOKE.

Geez...
Thank you. This is what I wanted to hear, because the argument that you present as a joke here is one that I think your evil twin (the one whose name is the same as the name of a collection of U2 remixes distributed for free to Propaganda members) might have presented for real.
speedracer is offline  
Old 08-23-2002, 01:44 PM   #26
War Child
 
zoomerang II's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: melbourne, terra australis
Posts: 657
Local Time: 08:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba


Let's run the numbers, shall we?

50 tons/day * 365 days/year * 40,000 years = 730,000,000 tons

So you are saying it has erupted every day for the last 40,000 years??? I know you used a figure of 2.5% the maximum value but i think that is likely to be way to high. Just curious as to where you got the value from i guess... you might want to divide your total by a reasonably large number to take into account the dormant periods of the volcanoes lifespan and the non-pyroclastic erruptions that have occured where the emissions will be far less.

Just doing the numbers...!

And as for cars, well if we play around with the figures, and ignore the volatile organics, the noxious particulates, the carcinogenic emissions such as benzene, the heavy metals and the heavier hydrocarbons, then yes, american cars are no worse for the air we breathe than your average american volcano.
zoomerang II is offline  
Old 08-27-2002, 12:36 AM   #27
The Fly
 
Hi Bias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southwest, U S
Posts: 49
Local Time: 09:26 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 27, 2002
Bush on Fire
By PAUL KRUGMAN


Round up the usual suspects! George W. Bush's new "Healthy Forests" plan reads like a parody of his administration's standard operating procedure. You see, environmentalists cause forest fires, and those nice corporations will solve the problem if we get out of their way.

Am I being too harsh? No, actually it's even worse than it seems. "Healthy Forests" isn't just about scrapping environmental protection; it's also about expanding corporate welfare.

Everyone agrees that the forests' prime evil is a well-meaning but counterproductive bear named Smokey. Generations of fire suppression have led to a dangerous accumulation of highly flammable small trees and underbrush. And in some not all of the national forests it's too late simply to reverse the policy; thanks to growing population and urban sprawl, some forests are too close to built-up areas to be allowed to burn.

Clearly, some of the excess fuel in some of the nation's forests should be removed. But how? Mr. Bush asserts that there is a free lunch: allowing more logging that thins out the national forests will both yield valuable resources and reduce fire risks.

But it turns out that the stuff that needs to be removed small trees and bushes, in areas close to habitation is of little commercial value. The good stuff, from the industry's point of view, consists of large, mature trees the kind of trees that usually survive forest fires which are often far from inhabited areas.

So the administration proposes to make deals with logging companies: in return for clearing out the stuff that should be removed, they will be granted the right to take out other stuff that probably shouldn't be removed. Notice that this means that there isn't a free lunch after all. And there are at least three severe further problems with this plan.

First, will the quid pro quo really be enforced, or will loggers simply make off with the quid and forget about the quo? The Forest Service, which would be in charge of enforcement, has repeatedly been cited by Congress's General Accounting Office for poor management and lack of accountability. And the agency, true to Bush administration form, is now run by a former industry lobbyist. (In the 2000 election cycle, the forest products industry gave 82 percent of its contributions to Republicans.) You don't have to be much of a cynic to question whether loggers will really be held to their promises.

Second, linking logging of mature trees to clearing of underbrush is a policy non sequitur. Suppose Mayor Mike Bloomberg announced that Waste Management Inc. would pick up Manhattan's trash free, in return for the right to dump toxic waste on Staten Island. Staten Island residents would protest, correctly, that if Manhattan wants its garbage picked up, it should pay for the service; if the city wants to sell companies the right to dump elsewhere, that should be treated as a separate issue. Similarly, if the federal government wants to clear underbrush near populated areas, it should pay for it; if it wants to sell the right to log mature trees elsewhere, that should be a separate decision.

And this gets us to the last point: In fact, the government doesn't make money when it sells timber rights to loggers. According to the General Accounting Office, the Forest Service consistently spends more money arranging timber sales than it actually gets from the sales. How much money? Funny you should ask: last year the Bush administration stopped releasing that information. In any case, the measured costs of timber sales capture only a fraction of the true budgetary costs of logging in the national forests, which is supported by hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies, especially for road-building. This means that, environmental issues aside, inducing logging companies to clear underbrush by letting them log elsewhere would probably end up costing taxpayers more, not less, than dealing with the problem directly.

So as in the case of the administration's energy policy, beneath the free-market rhetoric is a plan for increased subsidies to favored corporations. Surprise.

A final thought: Wouldn't it be nice if just once, on some issue, the Bush administration came up with a plan that didn't involve weakened environmental protection, financial breaks for wealthy individuals and corporations and reduced public oversight?
__________________

Hi Bias is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×