[at-l] "Greens" WAS Huh? WAS Heavy metals and RnR

[carol1944 at brmemc.net (Carol Donaldson)]

I believe the Bob Marshall Wilderness is one of the best 
in America. I think Bob also died of a heart attack. I also advocate 
overthrowing this present form of government and reinstalling the original 
Constitutional one. I wish we had a "green" version of Bush. Maybe then the greater 
percentage of Americans who wish to see more environmental protection would be 
represented instead of worked around. But those who throw "Socialism" into a 
MacKaye discussion (I'm not accusing you Coosa) do so only as an excuse to dismiss 
his greater environmental plans. The AT was one of them. The social aspect 
being a before-its-time effort at unfragmented greenway and biosphere protection 
in the Appalachians. Environmentally he designed the AT's wilderness ethic as a 
thing people would learn from the Trail and carry in their heads. I mean 
there are many people in power who honestly believe that as long as you can be 
seen as opposite of 'socialism' that anything you do is ok. There's a lot of 
harmful and destructive things that can be justified by pointing fingers at 
political Socialism. Meanwhile, the purely environmental vestige of this movement 
has merit apart from any political interpretations. Hell, if socialism gave us 
the AT, then we should thank it (at least in this regard). But the wise 
understand MacKaye meant this Project as a fair balance to society's progress and 
environmental destruction. That's why he got it built.
 
 No, MacKaye wanted to use the experience gained from wilderness to 
spur an appreciation of biosphere protection. Today we all appreciate the 
great feeling we get from the AT. I'm not sure, however, if we have lived up to 
or followed through on what MacKaye planned. The potential for this decreases 
each time the Trail is intruded into by whatever diminishes this experience and 
its plan. THAT MEANS WHATEVER AND WHOEVER.
========================================================
RnR, geeze man, you're makin' sense.   I hope everyone goes back and reads what I've cut and pasted above.

As a Green Conservative, I end up see-sawing on these issues.  I believe that cottage industries, like the hostels (vs the motel chains) are a positive amenity for hikers.  I also think that neither MacKay nor others considered that anyone would want to Thru-Hike the entire Trail.  Nor do I think that they envisioned US here, chatting -- they figured hikers would be out "doing" more and "chatting" less, if they even thought of people who would hike the AT and then form a community, such as this one (and others, such as WhiteBlaze.Net).  And I feel certain that they never envisioned a group such as the AT community as we have here.

I'm a member of other 'groups' and those are politically active (and also politically conservative, although surprisingly many are also 'green' conservatives).  

So would a "sub-committee" of "greens" be appropriate for this e-community?  Could we have a consensus on issues facing Congress and local legislators and act on those issues?  Is it possible for us to do so? 

What say you, Ryan?  Could we maybe have a Subject Line "Sub-Committee" for posts that deal with political issues?  Can this group become active politically without coming to blows (verbally or physically)?  

I try to keep up with environmental issues and I've sent many many many an email to the President (at whitehouse dot gov) giving him my opinions on various issues.  I now have my Federal Legislators emails handy so I can 'bug' them, too.  I've found that similar emails sent every few days over a month's time, have more impact than just one email.

Do we want to create a "political" arm of AT-L?    If not, then those who are on various "lists" and get emails from them, please forward the email to me if it pertains to the AT or the South Eastern portion of the USofA

By the Way, Nice Post RnR.

Coosa 
carol1944@brmemc.net
http://auntiecoosa.blogspot.com