Moderator: Nicole Marie
I agree. A definition even if it is considered wrong, is a necessary beginning.by Serenity: One of our BBB poster's signature refers to "naming and defining things as the beginning of wisdom" (sorry I can't recall who).
It was Shapley. I believe it went, "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper names."Originally posted by Serenity:
One of our BBB poster's signature refers to "naming and defining things as the beginning of wisdom" (sorry I can't recall who).
approximate translation.Tsze-lu asked,
"If the Duke of Wei made you an advisor,
what would you address as the very first priority?"
"The most important thing
is to use the correct words."
"What?" Tsze-lu replied.
"That's your first priority? The right words?"
"You really are simple, Yu.
The Sage keeps his mouth shut
when he doesn't know what he's talking about!
"If we don't use the correct words,
we live public lies.
If we live public lies,
the political system is a sham.
"When the political system is a sham,
civil order and refinement deteriorate.
When civil order and refinement deteriorate,
As injustice multiplies,
eventually the electorate is paralyzed
by public lawlessness.
"So the Sage takes for granted that he use the appropriate words,
and follow through on his promises with the appropriate deeds.
"The Sage must simply never speak lies."
You got me there for sure. I'm with you. Very little if any change needed to the constitution itself as it is an excellent foundation - IMOby barfle: At one time, I considered myself a conservative, in that I was, and still am, a "strict constructionist" - one who believes the Constitution is a damn good foundation for a government. I know it's not perfect, but it's still damn good.
The conservation movement was largely begun by conservative groups desiring to preserve timberlands and wilderness areas for hunting, fishing, and trapping.
...and strip mines and oil drilling.These conservative concepts, however, are at odds with the modern environmental movement, which seeks to restrict access to wilderness areas by hunters, fishermen, and loggers.
New World Mine Outside Yellowstone National Park3
Under the 1872 Mining Law, Crown Butte Mines was fully within its rights to reopen a closed mine just two to three miles from Yellowstone's northeast boundary that is estimated to be worth $650 million in gold, silver, and copper reserves. Under extreme pressure from environmental groups and the general public, the Clinton Administration arranged in August 1996 for a federal buyout of the mine site. Under the 1872 Mining Law, Crown Butte Mines was going to purchase the mining rights to the 27 acres of land outside of Yellowstone for $135.00 and would not have to pay royalties on the minerals produced. Public concern over the toxic chemicals employed in the mining process, the potential for runoff of acidic and heavy metal wastes into the areas surface rivers and streams, and the impact of the use of heavy machinery and land moving equipment on the local terrain led to the President's intervention.
The deal worked out by the Administration is a land swap under which Crown Butte Mines, a subsidiary of Hemlo Gold Mines of Canada, surrendered its rights to the mine. In return, the government will give the company $65 million worth of federal property for Crown Butte to develop an alternate mining operation. Crown Butte also agreed to place $22.5 million in escrow to cover the cost of cleaning up the site, which has had mining activity on and off since the late 1800's according to the Natural Resource Defense Council. After the cleanup, the site will remain the property of the federal government.
Oil and gas. Oil and gas companies gave $15.8 million to Bush campaign efforts in 2000 and 2004. Bush has opened federal land for oil and gas exploration and coal mining, targeted Wyoming’s Powder River Basin for coalbed methane drilling, and required federal agencies to consider how agency rules will affect energy supply, distribution and use.
** News from the Northern Plains Resource Council **
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thursday, April 3, 2003
CONTACT: Amy Frykman; Northern Plains staff; 406-582-1169
Terry Punt, Montana rancher; 406-984-6229
Eric Barlow, Wyoming rancher; 307-682-9369
WESTERN RANCHERS, CONSERVATIONISTS LAMENT FAILURE OF ALTERNATIVE FEDERAL
WASHINGTON D.C. - A U.S. House Committee's rejection of a measure
designed to protect private property rights and scarce water resources
in the west drew sharp criticism from ranchers facing widespread coal
bed methane development in the Powder River Basin.
Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives Resources Committee
rejected the "Rahall Energy Bill," sponsored by Rep. Nick Rahall, a
Democrat from West Virginia. The bill was drafted as an alternative to
the Energy Security Act of 2003, the Bush Administration's proposal to
ramp up energy development in western states. An unlikely coalition of
western ranchers, conservationists, water users, and renewable energy
advocates had endorsed the Rahall bill.
"We all need energy, but there's got to be some balance between energy
development and protection of private farms and ranches in the West,"
said Tongue River rancher Terry Punt. "The Rahall bill was a step in the
right direction. Now we're back to the Energy Security Act, which does
nothing to protect the interests of western landowners."
Following the vote on the Rahall bill, Democrats tried unsuccessfully to
attach two amendments to the Energy Security Act of 2003. One would have
required coal bed methane companies to better manage their high-sodium
methane wastewater; another sought to require methane operators to
consult with landowners before drilling on private property. Montana
Representative Dennis Rehberg voted against both provisions.
"How could a guy like Denny Rehberg - a fellow rancher - vote against
basic protections for Montana landowners?" asked Punt.
The Energy Security Act of 2003, sponsored by Rep. Richard Pombo
(R-California), contains several provisions designed to speed up leasing
and development of federal minerals in the west by limiting public
participation and streamlining permitting processes.
"Just look at the title: the Energy Security Act of 2003 - that's about
how farsighted it is," said Wyoming rancher Eric Barlow, whose family
has ranched on the Powder River for nearly a century. "We've got to
start thinking about what will be left on this land when the methane is
Coal bed methane is a form of natural gas held in coal seams by water
pressure. To release the gas, operators withdraw massive volumes of
high-sodium groundwater. Up to 77,000 coal bed methane wells are
anticipated for Montana and Wyoming's Powder River Basin. A majority
will be drilled on private lands, often over the strenuous objections of
SUPPORTERS OF THE RAHILL ENERGY BILL:
Biodiversity Conservation Alliance
Colorado Environmental Coalition
Dakota Resource Council
Defenders of Wildlife
Friends of the Earth
High Country Citizens Alliance
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Defense Council
New Mexico Wilderness Alliance
Northern Plains Resource Council
Oil and Gas Accountability Project
Powder River Basin Resource Council
San Juan Citizens Alliance
The Wilderness Society
U.S. Public Interest Research Group
Western Colorado Congress
Western Organization of Resource Councils
Wyoming Outdoor Council
Need more? There's lots and lots.Members of U.S. Congress urge more funding for renewables
WASHINGTON, DC, US, 2003-12-10 (Refocus Weekly) One hundred and five members of the U.S. House of Representatives have asked president George Bush to increase funding levels for renewable energies.
The 25 Republicans, 79 Democrats and one independent have urged Bush to make his budget request for the 2005 fiscal year “reflect an overall increase in the levels of support requested for the cross-section of energy efficiency programs and for the respective solar, wind, geothermal, biomass/biofuels, hydropower and renewable hydrogen programs within the U.S. Department of Energy."
The politicians acknowledge the "tight budgetary constraints" facing the federal administration but argue that increased support for renewable energy programs “represents a sound investment that could, over time, actually contribute to the nation's economic recovery by creating new domestic businesses and jobs, reducing energy imports, enhancing national security, improving the reliability of the nation's electric transmission grid, and curbing the costs of energy-related environmental impacts."
Bush will submit his budget request to Congress in January, and the letter from one quarter of Congress encourages him to support “robust funding levels.” The pending energy bill authorizes a 50% increase in funding for renewables and energy efficiency programs over the next five years, and the President's Committee of Advisors on Science & Technology recently suggested that funding levels for renewable energy should double over the same period.
The letter was circulated by Mark Udall and Zach Wamp, the co-chairs of the U.S. House of Representatives' Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Caucus.
The Sustainable Energy Coalition was formed in 1992 to represent 65 organizations, including the American Bioenergy Association, American Solar Energy Society, American Wind Energy Association, Center for Photovoltaic Research, Geothermal Energy Association, Low Impact Hydropower Institute, National Hydropower Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Renewable Energy Policy Project, Renewable Fuels Association, Solar Energy Industries Association, U.S. Public Interest Research Groups, Union of Concerned Scientists and World Wildlife Fund.
in general.I maintain that wise use of natural resources was and is a conservative idea. Environmental extremism is not.
You are saying that environmentalists have corrupted the conservative idea and I say to you, look at what YOU'VE done in the space of one thread by changing your own limits from hunting/fishing/trappin to include logging and the very loose term "wise use".Teddy Roosevelt, the original Conservationist, was an avid hunter and sportsmen. His support for preservation was instrumental in the origination of the conservation movement.
It is a pity it has been so woefully corrupted.
See, there is the problem - how do you figure by your OWN definition of conservatives in your OWN post, that Rahall is NOT a conservative.RE:An unlikely coalition of
western ranchers, conservationists, water users, and renewable energy advocates had endorsed the Rahall bill.
With the exeption of the last one, these sound pretty much like conservatives to me.
If you don't know Rahall what makes you say:I don't know Rahall
Rahall, being the SPONSOR of the bill would be the only one I would be certain of fitting the strict definition of conservation of the environment.[RC's reference:] An unlikely coalition of
western ranchers, conservationists, water users, and renewable energy advocates had endorsed the Rahall bill.
[Shap's response:] With the exeption of the last one, these sound pretty much like conservatives to me.
Shap says: nor have I defined conservative
sounds like a definition to me and this is specifically what I was citing.Shap also says (earlier): Conservation was and is a conservative issue. The conservation movement was largely begun by conservative groups desiring to preserve timberlands and wilderness areas for hunting, fishing, and trapping.
then hey, BTW, those environmentalists ARE conservatives and those that complain about hunting licenses and limited access are NOT.For example, take the environment. The very word "conservation" (of land, water, wildlife) makes people who want to preserve it "conservatives".
...ok, thanks for clearing that up...does it make a difference? I think you just made my point MORE relative.The first item I was refering the list of the "unlikely coalition", the last one being "advocates of alternative energy", such advocates often (not always) aligned with the left.
, advocates of alternative energy are conservative. They work to preserve the natural environment by promoting alternative fuels. You may consider that "Left", or "extremist", or "liberal", but, by the definition you said you agreed with - they are conservative.For example, take the environment. The very word "conservation" (of land, water, wildlife) makes people who want to preserve it "conservatives". Industry and the president are "liberals" here. Proposed changes in Social Security, the war in Iraq, the ballooning national debt are "liberal" to the point of "radical". Whether you agree with these initiatives or not, they are "liberal".
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]