tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8836688.post110869715080443586..comments2011-08-04T00:17:26.610-05:00Comments on The Middle Ear: Strategic Ignorance (by Carl Pope AND Paul Rauber) continuedDry Guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08257111474331115117noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8836688.post-1108934269014898062005-02-20T15:17:00.000-06:002005-02-20T15:17:00.000-06:00"No logging company, or set of companies, or even ..."No logging company, or set of companies, or even the weight of the administration, can stand up to the combined weight of a few million people like yourself staging protests and boycotts, and engaging in collective bargaining. Those are the methods that will actually work; government fiat leads to economic and ecological ruin."<br /><br />Your applying absolutes again without looking at the Administration's record.<br /><br />"I've spelled out to you numerous ways that the private sector can protect pristine ecologies, without any gum'mint "help" -- which can only end up as hurtful rather than helpful. <br /><br />That you don't seem to like any of those methods tells me that in the end, you really don't think enough people care about your cause to make a difference. In short, in regards to environmentalism, you subscribe to the rank cynicism and (yes) misanthropy of liberalism."<br /><br />You can find most of the answer you're looking for in comment #7 of my previous topic.<br /><br />I could go in to the cynicism of conservativism, but why bother? These twists will just go on.<br /><br />"Indeed. I've often said that labelling in politics is mostly useless."<br /><br />Lo, unless you find labelling appropriate on all environmental matters, you are not being truthful. <br /><br />"I'm reluctantly forced to conclude that you're either too lazy, or too cynical of your fellow humans, to do the right (so to speak) thing."<br /><br />Lo, my patience with your accusations have come to its conclusion. I could turn the table on the very words you have said, but, again, these twists will just go on. I can only take some of the penetrating positions you state in to account while reading other sources, too. I have acknowledged that you are right on many of the positions, but asking me to cave in on all of them seems a bit much considering our Administration's track record. And, yes, it is my cynicism to believe that when it boils right down to it, both party's have a vested interest in telling the general public on thing while doing completely another. This allows me to seek the truth from outside sources, whether right or wrong on the issue.Dry Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08257111474331115117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8836688.post-1108774598141096782005-02-18T18:56:00.000-06:002005-02-18T18:56:00.000-06:00"Please, whatever you do, don't raise the possibil..."Please, whatever you do, don't raise the possibility that the reason that some in the administration are trying to relax regulations is because they were too strict in the first place?"<br /><br />Yes, I understand that there are instances of too much regulation as there are instances where the Administration is allowing excessive logging. My main issue is the Administration is illegally practicing ways to pay back their campaign contributors mentioned numerous times in Bush Versus the Environment and Strategic Ignorance.<br /><br />I also understand that the Sierra Club generally speaking have their own agenda. However, I also understand the need to investigate both sides irregardless of affiliation and take the points I believe are sound. The reason I tend to the left on this specific issue is because of the very thing you once told me: That the right seem to have more on the left. But on the environment, it seems the detailed arguments go the left. And what is hurting the right currently is the Limbaughism of plopping everything environmental in to the "wackos" category while green books are detailing their own administration's mispractices. As I've stated before, conservation use to sit within the conservative movement of Roosevelt and like followers. And as the true meaning of "liberal" is now attached to conservatives, so too is the true meaning of "conservation" with the liberal. It's bizarre, but then we do live in unusual times.Dry Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08257111474331115117noreply@blogger.com