[at-l] A.N.W.R. VOTE - conservation issue - not trail related

[spiriteagle99@hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Weary wrote:
>No one can question those weird things that offend each of us. And every 
>list attracts nuts, bigots and closed minds. However, being offended is 
>somethin like allergies. You have them or not; you are or are not. Though 
>unlike allergies, pills don't help ignorance -- only knowledge and the 
>ability to have an open mind, and to listen to those with contrary 
>opinions, does that.
>
>But a list that condemns an occasional message dealing with an important 
>public matter, is a list wedded to the trivial.


A couple problems here, Bob - the first being that you're back to your "the 
list is trivial" song and dance.  One post saying that the man doesn't like 
that post doesn't make the list as a whole "trivial".  We went through this 
before.  Do we have to go through it again?

Next point - Rami's "information" (and this isn't a hit on him) is so 
slanted that I doubt it could stand on it's own.  It's full of emotionally 
"loaded" verbiage - for example - EVERY bill that's passed through Congress 
has similar "riders".  It's the way business is done there - I don't like it 
- it sucks swamp water, it's dishonest and I'd like to think it's illegeal.  
But the implication that "only those terrible pro-drilling senators" do that 
kind of thing is pure, unadulterated bull.  Fact is, both parties have done 
that since before either of us were born.

Next point - there's NO rationale there for WHY drilling in the ANWR is bad 
- just the bald statement that it's so. I'm not saying it's good - or that 
it should happen, but if you're gonna tell me that it shouldn't happen then 
give me some reason for your viewpoint. I'm not a robot - nor are most of 
the others on this list. And many of us don't respond well to the automatic 
assumption that what any particular environmental organization tells us is 
Gospel. Those who want to tell me how to vote or think or believe invariably 
get told where they can put it.

Keep in mind that I'm a pragmatic iconoclast - and paranoid to boot.  I 
seldom fall for the emotional BS that passes for "science" in some places 
these days.  And that press release is pure emotion.

Now - about the ANWR - you may not like it, I don't like it, but sooner or 
later, it WILL be drilled.  The question is - will it be drilled NOW when we 
have the time to do it right and perpetrate minimal ecological damage - or 
will we wait until it's a necessity - and do it fast and dirty with maximal 
damage?  And don't give me the "It'll only provide 60 days worth of oil" 
crap that someone tried to sell me some time back - that's not even bad 
science - it's just plain lying.

Now - if you've got good reasons for everyone to call their senators, trot 
'em out, let's see what they look like.  But don't expect me to swallow 
something like that just because it "sounds good" or because someone puts 
out a "press release" with their particular emotional tirade or because 
"wilderness" is the defining factor of your life and you think it should be 
in everyone else's as well.

The line near the end that says: "such legislation should protect America's 
wildlands while securing a sustainable energy future for our country." is 
pure BS - it's an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.  Are you open-minded 
enough to understand why?

Have a good weekend - we're gone.  When we get back, we'll see how "serious" 
you get about this.  You sometimes do a real good job of making your case - 
so go for it.

Jim

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp