[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[pct-l] The Backpacker's Bookshelf

On Sat, 23 Dec 2000 11:50:52 -0800, ROBERT E RIESS wrote:

>  Regarding the upcoming administration's pro-development, big-business
>  antiwilderness agenda:
>  First, does this express a fact or an opinion?  If it's a fact cite your
>  reference.  If it's an opinion, so state.
>  Second, exactly what agenda is this, and why should it be derailed?
>  Third,  Just a little personal observation, but your unpunctuated writing
>  difficult to understand.  Is this intentional, and if so, why?  I can't
>  think of any reason why someone would write like this.  Most people are
>  going to take the time and effort to decipher your posts.
>facts?got plenty of them. for starters,look at his cabinet nominees,from
oil to mining interests it`s a virtual who`s who of corporate america,people
not known for environmental sympathies.then theres bushes nominee for
interior secretary ,a prot`ege of arch anti-enviromentalist james watt. she
belives polluters should come forward `voluntarily` so we can work with
them.the second coming of john muir she ai`nt. then there`s bushes campaign
promises,that clearly show where his sympathies lie.he favors oil drilling
in enviromentally sensitive areas(remember the exxon valdez?)a gift to the
oil lobby. he has repetadly said `it`s time to put the forests back to
work`,a windfall for the timber industry, at the expence of the roadless
areas initive.he wan`ts to look into overturning recent national monument
designations,revoking there protection ,to the delight of the mining and
ranching industrys.he`s aginst the endangered spieces act,to applause from
the above lobbies(i guess the slaughter of 8 billion passenger pigions
was`nt enough if there is a buck to be made).add to this his goal to ease
`burdensome` regulations on industry,it`s clear his sympathies lie with the
corporations over the enviroment.
why should we be against it? because for most of this countrys history
enviromental policy has been driven by not what`s good for the
enviroment,but what`s good for big business,to the detriment of our national
resources,(such as oregons catherdral groves,all but gone,the coast redwoods
less than 5% remain,just to name a couple.)
you only need to take a hike on the p.c.t. to see what i mean,cattle fouled
springs(regulations to keep stock out of public watersources would be to
`burdensome` to ranchers),sheep decimated meadows,eroded trails in logging
country(putting steep slopes off limits to logging might cost a buck or
two),though thankfully ,kennecotts plan for a strip mine in the middle of
washingtons glacier peak wilderness was defeated after hikers threatend to
get medieval on there asses if they tried.
the frontier days of unfetterd capitalism are gone,there are not enough
unprotected areas left ,to just let corporate america do what they please
with anymore ,especially with less or `voluntary`regulations.their record
with regulations in place has been shamefull,doe`s anyone think they will do
better with less?
in answer to your last question,some people do write like this because they
did`nt have all the education they would have liked,and working construction
gives me little opportunity to put pen to paper,but i will still keep trying
to defend the enviroment even if im not it`s most eloquent spokesman. rob

Send a cool gift with your E-Card