Re[2]: [at-l] The Government and The Environment - TOTALLY OFF TOPIC

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

Bob C. Bob Cummings
>"...I think you might want to define precisely what you think is 
>"superficial" - and why," urges Jim.
>
>I been around elected politicians most of my life.

I've been around the ALL my life.  They were friends of the family before I 
was born - and then I married into a family of professional politicians.

>I've even been one in a very small way.

Until now, I've carefully avoided that.

>Every one of us were chosen by the voters, based on what I continually 
>thought were probably superficial reasons. The best self governance 
>requires more effort than most voters are willing to devote.

ALL voters ARE lazy - but where you lose it is that you seem to think that 
they should be concerned about the things that you were elected to worry 
about.  If they were gonna have to worry about a lot of those things, then 
you'd have been unnecessary and they'd have had no reason to elect you.  The 
"public servant" bit is a really under-emphasized these days.

You also seem to think that "your" agenda should be central.  Where did you 
miss the point that there are other issues in the world that very often 
override your particular ideas - for any of a large range of reasons?


>  Because of this voter indifference, politicians are not the wisest, and 
>most  knowledgeable members of society. I used to be appalled by how little 
>some of  them knew about the issues they were charged with deciding.

Read "Acres of Diamonds".  It was written before either of us were born - 
and it's a direct refutation of your seeming expectation.  In a nutshell, it 
says politicians are nearly always the second raters.  The first rate talent 
goes on to do something useful with their lives - like production of the 
goods and services necessary to support and advance the society they live 
in.


>But I was also impressed with their general dedication, devotion, hard work 
>and sincereity. I don't know much about Louisiana, but Shane was talking 
>about politicians in general.

Won't buy that - I've lived in Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania long 
enough and known enough elected (and unelected) politicians to know exactly 
what politicians are - and are not.  And Shane is a lot closer to reality 
than you are.  There are always a few honest politicians in the sense that 
they try to actually KNOW what they're voting for and to not dip into the 
till too deeply - but they're an underwhelming minority.  If I want 
dedication, devotion, hard work and sincerity, (and knowledge) I'll look for 
a bureaucrat, not a politician.


>  Most in my experience do not fit Shane's cynical view. Most work hard, 
>struggle with the issues, and try to do the best they can for a largely 
>indifferent electorate. It's the nature of humans to have differering 
>opinions. That's no reason to claim as Shane did that government prodded by 
>an alert citizenry cannot be trusted to improve the environment.

Of course it is - even the Founding Fathers knew that the government isn't 
the "friend" of the people it governs.  Any other interpretation of the 
original writings is pure ignorance.  That's why we have a Bill of Rights.  
I work with people who manage multi-billion dollar contracts.  And the 
problem isn't that they're evil or stupid, it's that there's never enough 
time  or real information to make informed decisions, that there are too 
many conflicting requirements laid on them and never enough money to do the 
job right.  But none of that makes either the bureaucrats (much less the 
politicians) or the "government" either trustworthy or reliably "friendly" 
to any given cause or course of action.

Cynicism?  Not at all - just reality after watching, knowing, talking to and 
dealing with both bureaucrats and elected politicians at the local and 
national level for the last 45 years.

You also might want to think about this - an alert and informed citizenry 
might not want those things that you consider important.  The citizenry was 
alerted during the last Presidential election - and look who's President 
now.

>  His claim that:  We complain about loggers, but live in wooden houses..." 
>is " bizarre hypocrisy" is superficial. You can harvest wisely and in ways 
>that maximize the resource or you can rape the land for immediate profit 
>and destroy future productivity.

Really?  Go look at recent statements on the list about "big business".  And 
then figure out how this country could have produced the computers that 
we're all using without those "big businesses"?  Or the insulation you used 
to build your passive solar house?  Or the low wattage light bulbs you use 
to light it? Or the van you drove to the Ruck?  Or .....

You (and a lot of others) have a habit of taking individual problems (like 
clearcutting?), generalizing on them, and then making grand sweeping 
statements about things like "Big Business" or "Government" or .... 
whatever.   I went through the "clearcutting" exercise a couple years ago - 
I was impressed by the quality of misinformation that was propagated about 
the issue.


>To claim that "... government, in my opinion, is the least capable entity 
>for protecting the environment, since - in the end - the government is for 
>sale to the highest bidder..." is superficial. Government is the only 
>agency that can protect broad  public resources like water, air and land.

How did you miss the fact that in PA the Game Commission has seriously 
discussed the closing of PA gamelands to anything but hunting?  Or doesn't 
it register that the AT runs through a lot of PA gamelands?  Or maybe the 
recent threat of sale of land in TN (?) specifically donated for a 
wilderness area because they need the money?  Protection?  For what?  For 
whom?  And against whom?

The government does a lot of good work in the protection racket - but it 
also does a lot of nasty, underhanded, unethical things as well.  Don't come 
on to me with the "Trust the Government" line - it don't float.  I've seen 
too many abuses - up close and personal.  I do'nt condemn the entire 
government for those abuses - but I'm not willing to ignore those abuses 
either.


>  Voters use such cynicism as an excuse for laziness. Cynics are part of 
>the problem. I know when voters take an interest, a majority of politicians 
>will usually (... well at least sometimes and eventually) make good 
>decisions.

We're ALL lazy, Bob - your original statement was an example of laziness - 
as is my lack of response to a lot of the nonsense that floats by on the 
list.  You tried to make a point with a "shortcut" answer - and I'm here 
right now because I object to sweeping cliches that as you said - are both 
wrong, and have a small element of truth that disguises the wrongness. 
That's one of the pet peeves that I mentioned last night in another thread.

If you really want, I can make a case for "laziness" being equivalent to 
"Original Sin".  And we're ALL guilty of it.

Walk softly,
Jim




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