[at-l] OT: Next Shuttle flight...

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

Weary wrote:
> >"...Like many things - tax cuts and Rail Trail funding, for example - it 
>ain't
> >as simple as it looks - or as you've been told.  Or as easy to fix." 
>argues Jim
> >and/or...
>
>So, lets discuss it. Being a liberal -- well by my perhaps skewed 
>definition
>anyway --

LOL!!!  Yeah - we all know you think you're a liberal.  And that anyone who 
doesn't totally agree with you is a "dunder-headed conservative." (my words, 
not yours <G>)  But I've never bothered to label myself like that.  I 
learned long ago that that kind of label (on either end of the political 
spectrum and especially when applied to oneself) is a prison.  It ties one 
irrevocably to concepts and actions that are rarely, if ever, either 
pragmatic or logically consistent  because the philosophies are almost 
universally a melange of other people's silly ideas that have no real 
applicability to the situations to which they're applied.  I much prefer to 
maintain the personal intellectual freedom to actually "think" something 
through instead of just react in patterns that have been predetermined by 
"other" people who generally couldn't find their a$$ if they had both hands 
free.

I suspect your sense of humor won't stretch this far, but we'll give it a 
try anyway - the link for the Dictionary of Liberalism is:  
http://members.lycos.co.uk/writewinger/libdictionary.htm

Unfortunately, personal experience is that it contains far more truth than 
some are comfortable with.  <G>


>I'm appalled at the inability of alleged "conservatives" to balance
>our nation's budgets, from Nixon through today. And amazed at the ability 
>of
>even a pseudo liberal like Clinton to do so.

But - but - but ----- Bob -- don't you realize that it was Democrats like 
Johnson and Roosevelt who showed the "conservatives" the way to "unbalance" 
the budget?  <VBG>

Or that it was only the massive "bubble" of the 90's - AND the gutting of 
this nation's military, intelligence and scientific capabilities that 
allowed Clinton to "balance the budget"?

Don't get me wrong, though - I'm not in favor of the present "balloon" 
addition to the national debt either.  But it has happened like this before 
- when Reagan was forced to pour money into the military and intelligence 
services in order to try to repair the damage done by Carter's gutting.  But 
that  damage never was completely repaired.  SSDD.


>Sorry, for the interruption, that's quite beside the point for this 
>particular
>discussion.
>
>But we do have abandoned rail lines. Abandoned rail lines almost everyone 
>seems
>to agree make great trails of one kind or another.

Hmmm - yeah - "of one kind or another."  You don't deal much with ATV's, 
horses or mountain bikes, do you?


>Since 99 percent of the most
>used American trails are on Government land of one kind or another, that
>suggests to me that most people don't earn the income needed to build 
>trails of
>their own.

Really?  As a logical construct, that just doesn't follow.  It requires too 
many shaky assumptions.

So let's talk about something I know about - Pennsylvania.  Where the hiking 
trails were built by volunteer labor, on either Gamelands or State Forest 
land that was originally either bought from or donated to the state by the 
wealthy companies and individual that you so object to.  That doesn't fit 
your model, does it.

Well - OK - how about the AT?  Most of the AT was originally built on what?  
Forest land?  Naaah.  National Park land?  Naaah.  Private land?  Yup.   In 
large part, it was built - again - by volunteer labor ON PRIVATE LAND - that 
later became National Park or Forest land - sometimes by donation, sometimes 
by purchase, very often by condemnation thus breaking faith with the people 
who welcomed the trail in the first place.  That doesn't fit your model 
either --- you need a new model.

Besides - I know people who HAVE built their own trails.

 >Nor, I suspect, that even if we each of us could afford our own
>personal Appalachian Trail, we still wouldn't have enough land even with a
>"growing" American land base for everyone to own their own trails (and if 
>the
>land doesn't grow, as we have learned, the land will ultimately "stagnate 
>and
>decay."

If you're gonna transmogrify my words and then misapply them to really silly 
applications, then you should at least use a smiley face <VBG>

Reality, by the way, is that the "land base" as you put it is both growing 
and shrinking.  But I'll let you figure out how.

If you want to get serious about this, then answer the questions I've asked 
you at least 3 times previously - the government (in one form or another) 
"owns" more than 35 % of the land area in this country --- so how much is 
"enough"?  Why would that be enough?  And why is what's presently government 
owned NOT enough?  You've blown off those questions before - and I expect 
you will again.  But until you come up with answers to them, you're not 
playin' with a full deck.


>  But that's a problem for the future. More importantly, for now, most of 
>us
>agree that if trails don't expand, they also will stagnate and decay, 
>making it
>wise for us to take this opportunity to acquire trails and thus avoid that
>"ultimate stagnation and decay."

What world do you live in, Bob?  The trails are most definitlely expanding - 
at the same time that both the user base and the maintenance capability are 
declining.  Or haven't you listened to RnR's comments (as well as mine - and 
your own) about the lack of bodies to maintain the trails we have?  I just 
spent the last two weekends on a trail that's within 70 miles of NYC - and 
desperately needs major maintenance.  The "expand the trails" philosophy is 
not one I disagree with at all - I've spent a lot of time, money and energy 
building new trail and maintaining what we've got.  But who do you think is 
gonna maintain all the new trails you'd like to see "acquired/expanded"?  Da 
Gubmint maybe?  Really??  Given the recent budget cuts at all governmental 
levels - I don't think so.

Since this seems to have been started by the rail-trails "discussion" --- PA 
has probably as many as any other state - although I haven't actually 
checked the numbers lately.  And if memory serves, many of them were built 
on what was once, and sometimes still is, private land.

As for "acquiring trails" - who's stopping you?  Oh - you mean da Gubmint 
isn't giving the money you think they should give to the "cause"?  Well, you 
poor baby!!!!

What? You think the government should come up with millions of dollars to 
feed your particular special interest?  And yeah - it IS a "special 
interest".  There's no real legal, moral or ethical obligation for da 
Gubmint to fund trails - or land conservation - and certainly not on the 
scale that YOU desire.  Or didn't you realize that?  Your view that the 
trails - and land conservation - are "under attack" is an interesting, if 
erroneous, concept.  If they were under attack, there'd be people out there 
actively trying to destroy them - not just failing to fund "new" trails and 
land acq.  There's a BIG difference.  Oh - there ARE trails under attack - 
but it's mostly by the ATV and horse and mountain bike people who want 
"multi-use" access to ALL trails and would destroy the trails we've got out 
of selfishness and ignorance.

Of course - then there's the Nature Conservancy.  Or did you miss the series 
of articles that detailed the $6 billion dollars that they were sitting on - 
as well as some of the operatiing problems with the  organization.  Uh - 
tell me - if they've got $6 billion - why is anyone bitching about the Feds 
cutting funds?  Oh - you mean they don't share?   Why not?  Why are my tax 
dollars supposed to pay for a "cause" that many of us have, for a lot of 
years, been giving money to the Nature Conservancy and other organizations 
for?  What's wrong with this picture?

And then, some time ago, there was some noise about the lack of funding for 
AmeriCorps.  Should I assume that you know how many Democrats were involved 
in that lack of funding?  Or that the reason for the lack (probably a delay) 
of funding was due to perceived mismanagement of funds?  Or that future 
funding will be dependent on the justification of expenditures by the 
Americorps management?

So - what makes you think that the rail-trail community (or any other 
Federally funded organization) shouldn't also have to justify their 
expenditures?  At least in part, that IS what this was all about, babe.  Or 
didn't you know that?  Or do you think that the rail-trail people are ALL 
squeaky clean?  You should have paid attention to the link that Kahley put 
out a year or so ago. You know -  the one that detailed the distribution of 
$30 Mil that PA got from the Feds to promote "trails."  Did you realize 
that, if memory serves, only $17,000 of that money went anywhere near a  
hiking trail?  And that the rest of it went to fund "studies" for 
rail-trails and municipal parks?  Not construction - but "studies."  Meaning 
a lot of the local gubmints got to hire another body or two (and, 
incidentally, expand "someone's" empire) on free Federal money.  In fact - 
the rail-trail movement has come to be regarded by some local governments as 
a cash cow - a source of free Federal funding.  Since you think Federal 
deficits are so terrible, why would you believe that unrestricted "money 
giveaways" are acceptable?

So why am I so cynical about this?  Simple - we spent 5 years building a 45 
mile trail in central PA.  All volunteer labor - including the scouting, 
planning, design and construction of the trail.  Figure it cost da gubmint 
(at ALL levels) a total of less than $10k.  Compare that to rail-trail 
"planning" that takes $50k - $100K (or more) per year for multiple years 
before construction even starts.  And construction is on a prepared bed, not 
on the PA rocks and roots that we had to hack our way through.  Hey - how 
about those who are so hot on rail-trails actually getting out there and 
doing less "studying" and more "building"?  I'm all for rail-trails - but 
the cost numbers that I've seen are exorbitant.

We "could" also get into a discussion about rail-trail maintenance if you 
like?

Finally - I told you 2 years ago that this budget crunch was coming - so 
what's the surprise?  Oh  - yeah - you didn't believe me, did you? I also 
told you that I'd known for 6 years what was gonna happen to the Maine 
forests, too - but you didn't believe that either -- did you?  Well - I'll 
give you another one - a freebie - what ever happens, get the land that you 
can NOW.  Cause while the funding will loosen up for a while in a couple 
years - it won't last.  You've got "maybe" 10 years - and then the trail 
funding is gonna dry up like the Wyoming desert in July.  And it ain't gonna 
make no never-mind to me whether you believe me or not.

>From a Liberal perspective, well, my version of liberal perspective, trails 
>are
>more important than tax cuts for the most wealthiest of Americans, 
>especially
>since they got wealthy mostly from making wise investments and they, 
>therefore,
>may not invest their new tax cut wealth to produce American jobs -- or even
>American trails --

Y'know - I've listened to this "anti-wealth" diatribe from you, and Curtis 
and a few others --- and it just don't compute.  First off - the "tax cuts" 
that you keep whining about will affect a whole lot more people than, as you 
put it, the "400 individuals that earn 1 per cent of all the income earned 
by 275 million Americans."  I rather suspect, by the way, that those numbers 
are pure horse puckey. I may even go look up the numbers later - unless 
you'd like to supply a source?  What I do know to be true though is that 
80+% of all taxes paid in this country - are paid by the top 5%.  To 
translate that for you - it means that if you eliminate everyone that you'd 
classify as "wealthy" - there wouldn't be very much in the way of tax money 
for the so-called "tax and spend liberals" to spend.  Much less for the 
trails.

Along this same line - another part that you conveniently ignore is that 
many of the National Parks and wilderness areas in this country (and in 
Canada) were "donated" by some of those wealthy individuals and companies.  
Without the wealthy, many, if not most, of the National Parks and Forests 
wouldn't exist at all.   Hmmm - except for the Carson National Forest and 
Shenandoah National Park (and a few others), which da Gubmint simply 
blatantly stole from people who are a lot poorer than you or I.

>but rather in countries where people are willing to work for
>a dollar a day producing things that Americans think they need, therefore
>maximizing their wealth--the investors wealth, not the dollar a day folks'
>wealth, or even the wealth of us few ordinary Americans, who think trails 
>are
>important.

You're flim-flamming again, Bob.  Whatever ---- connecting the "who think 
trails are important" phrase in there has no logical purpose with respect to 
the subject, does it.  MANY of us think the trails are important - and 
implying that "only" those of your particular political stripe are concerned 
- would be not only dumb, but insultiing.  That is - if that's what you're 
implying.  Is it?

OTOH - some of us also realize that the survival of those trails is tied 
directly to the survival of this country.  You don't always seem to make 
that connection.

And you're wrong again cause in many places, the "dollar a day" folks are 
the "rich folk" - if you don't know that then you need to spend some time in 
Mexico or Indochina or Taiwan or Costa Rica or .............

And then - what - you're not an "investor"?  Really???  C'mon now - you're 
retired - where do you think your pension money comes from?  Anyone who has 
a 401K - or ANY piece of ANY retirement system except Social Security (which 
I don't consider secure at all) --- IS an investor.  That is - assuming you 
have a pension.  I sure hope you do.

Y'know - you do a lot of complaining about things that, if they were to be 
"corrected" in accordance with your apparent ideas, would REALLY negatively 
affect your own life.  And a LOT of others as well.

>  Weary, who has never before written a sentence quite so long -- or as 
>truthful.
>  YMMV.

And it does.

Have a good day anyway,
Jim

_________________________________________________________________
Compare Cable, DSL or Satellite plans: As low as $29.95.  
https://broadband.msn.com