A very relevant point was raised in your post about the Forest Service office in your area being blown up by environmentalists. Thank you!
Private paramilitaries guard Wisconsin mining site from prot
Moderator: Super Moderators
-
Raggedyann
- Pirate
- Posts: 5250
- Joined: 08-22-2006 04:50 PM
I remember reading "The Monkey Wrench Gang" as a teenager. The characters in that book didn't seem like 'bleeding heart knee jerk liberal' loser communists.
In fact guys like Hayduke (the Vietnam era Green Beret) & Seldom Seen Smith seemed like Quixotic all-American figures to me - complete with Marvelesque flaws.
Maybe I should re-read it.
In fact guys like Hayduke (the Vietnam era Green Beret) & Seldom Seen Smith seemed like Quixotic all-American figures to me - complete with Marvelesque flaws.
Maybe I should re-read it.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.
-
Raggedyann
- Pirate
- Posts: 5250
- Joined: 08-22-2006 04:50 PM
I will have to read this book online Squid.
"From a 21st-century viewpoint, the Gang in some ways bears little resemblance to the modern media's portrayal of environmentalists — the book's characters eat a lot of red meat, own firearms, litter the roadside with empty beer cans and drive big cars. (Abbey's habits were reportedly similar.) Abbey's politics are not "bleeding heart", and most of the characters dismiss liberalism: they attack American Indians as well as whites for their consumerism, and hold little regard for the Sierra Club.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monkey_Wrench_Gang
I remember a tree falling crew at at Kelsea Bay actually refused to cut down a park like old growth setting. After they dug their heels in, the company relented and it is still there today for their community to enjoy.
Believe it or not, many loggers that I knew supported the spirit of the environmentalists. But folks have to put bread on the table and this is part of the reality of any industrial environmental conflict. It's the corporate winning factor.
"From a 21st-century viewpoint, the Gang in some ways bears little resemblance to the modern media's portrayal of environmentalists — the book's characters eat a lot of red meat, own firearms, litter the roadside with empty beer cans and drive big cars. (Abbey's habits were reportedly similar.) Abbey's politics are not "bleeding heart", and most of the characters dismiss liberalism: they attack American Indians as well as whites for their consumerism, and hold little regard for the Sierra Club.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monkey_Wrench_Gang
I remember a tree falling crew at at Kelsea Bay actually refused to cut down a park like old growth setting. After they dug their heels in, the company relented and it is still there today for their community to enjoy.
Believe it or not, many loggers that I knew supported the spirit of the environmentalists. But folks have to put bread on the table and this is part of the reality of any industrial environmental conflict. It's the corporate winning factor.
“For evil to flourish, it only requires good men to do nothing.” Simon Wiesenthal
I've never read "The Monkey Wrench Gang". But along with RA's excerpt, would you believe I also found this in the Wikipedia entry:
Generally speaking, along with threats against life and limb, society frowns on destruction of property, public OR private. Even more than mining, blowing up buildings is a risky business to get into - As Doka cites Earth First as engaging in intimidatingly explosive enterprises, equipment so targeted could well endanger innocent bystanders -
But again that's TMI. Trivial detail distorts the truth the company has no right to protect its property OR workers.
Well, there you have it. The Goracle has spoken!
As Groucho Marx would say, "Of course you know this means WAR?"
---
Climate change is surely all the work of man,
And it won't be long 'til the sh!t hits the fan:
Lest we heed what needs be done, and forcefully act?
Hell on Earth is coming, that's the simple fact -
Onward Eco-Soldiers, marching as to war
With the words of Al Gore going on before
Carbon credits, offsets, are just instruments
To make sure we all make proper investments
Wind and solar, biofuels, will all ably
Replace all the sinful sources of our energy...
Onward Eco-Soldiers, marching as to war
With the words of Al Gore going on before
Like an active army looms the church of Earth
Moving ever wider, in both length and girth -
"Miner, stop your digging! Woodsman, spare that tree!"
Cripple their equipment, on to victory!
Onward Eco-Soldiers, marching as to war
With the words of Al Gore going on before
Al our royal Master leads against the foe
Safely distanced from the rough tough toe-to-toe:
He can best steer the great war 'gainst the evil threat
From a phone, his stately home, or even private jet -!
Onward Eco-Soldiers, marching as to war
With the words of Al Gore going on before
- The book may have been the inspiration for Dave Foreman's and Mike Roselle's creation of Earth First!, a direct action environmental organization that often advocates much of the minor vandalism depicted in the book.
With such as may be, can it any longer be said this sort of thing is simply exercising the right to free speech?Raggedyann wrote: Although I agree with protesting I do not agree with life threatening protests of any sort. Just wanted to clear that up. Screw their equipment!
Generally speaking, along with threats against life and limb, society frowns on destruction of property, public OR private. Even more than mining, blowing up buildings is a risky business to get into - As Doka cites Earth First as engaging in intimidatingly explosive enterprises, equipment so targeted could well endanger innocent bystanders -
But again that's TMI. Trivial detail distorts the truth the company has no right to protect its property OR workers.
Y'know, not only does Al Gore have a sympathetic ear when it comes to planetary environmental concerns, he's built up quite an Earther following himself. I'm sure he'd be more than willing to help get the message out to even more people, and take things to a 'higher level' -Raggedyann wrote: As corporate terrorism is endorsed by the government, who do we complain to when we see threats against our environment? I say "our environment" as "our" means every man, woman and child that resides on the planet. This planet belongs to all of us.
Well, there you have it. The Goracle has spoken!
IN doing that, just to be clear so We the People know what they'll be getting into -Raggedyann wrote: We have no trustable planetary custodians, so it only makes sense that "We the people" take matter into our own hands.
As Groucho Marx would say, "Of course you know this means WAR?"
---
Climate change is surely all the work of man,
And it won't be long 'til the sh!t hits the fan:
Lest we heed what needs be done, and forcefully act?
Hell on Earth is coming, that's the simple fact -
Onward Eco-Soldiers, marching as to war
With the words of Al Gore going on before
Carbon credits, offsets, are just instruments
To make sure we all make proper investments
Wind and solar, biofuels, will all ably
Replace all the sinful sources of our energy...
Onward Eco-Soldiers, marching as to war
With the words of Al Gore going on before
Like an active army looms the church of Earth
Moving ever wider, in both length and girth -
"Miner, stop your digging! Woodsman, spare that tree!"
Cripple their equipment, on to victory!
Onward Eco-Soldiers, marching as to war
With the words of Al Gore going on before
Al our royal Master leads against the foe
Safely distanced from the rough tough toe-to-toe:
He can best steer the great war 'gainst the evil threat
From a phone, his stately home, or even private jet -!
Onward Eco-Soldiers, marching as to war
With the words of Al Gore going on before
-
Raggedyann
- Pirate
- Posts: 5250
- Joined: 08-22-2006 04:50 PM
No worries, Rob. Would you believe they're ALREADY covered AS part of our national security?
Preparations are in place. We can all rest easy. Push come to shove, not only is protection of America's resources assured, they couldn't be in any better hands!
Executive Order Asserts Presidential Control Over Natural Resources
ZERO chance of abuse here. What could possibly go wrong?
-
Raggedyann
- Pirate
- Posts: 5250
- Joined: 08-22-2006 04:50 PM
For those who care about the environment, read and weep.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/07/10 ... ref=canada
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/07/10 ... ref=canada
Last edited by Raggedyann on 07-11-2013 12:46 AM, edited 1 time in total.
“For evil to flourish, it only requires good men to do nothing.” Simon Wiesenthal
The World in Black & White Tees
A Common Name, Two Eco-Movements -
Pick one - Sorry no grey shades allowed
ExtremesRus: Your one stop shirt shop!
Hmm. Systematic deliberate destruction of the environment by corporate interests, no less dedicated calculated deconstruction of modern civilization by the eco-militantly motivated - Would you believe I give both shirt styles two thumbs down, as neither one expresses my personal point of view concerning associated issues of import?
Corporations think they own the planet. On the other side of the coin is the idea one and all humans need keep uncompromisingly possessive watch on Terra. On its edge? I see another view: Mother Earth holds claim to US.
As a species we're fairly late addons to her living creature collection, and basically by design, we'll be in it only so long as she feels up to keeping us around. Sure, treating her right could extend our stay and too many demands made on her could easily cut it off early - Still, say a good size solar flare or asteroid hits her? ALL bets are off -
OTOH, regardless of anything we may do TO help her OR hurt her, anytime and at her choosing she can make things VERY uncomfortable for mankind. A magnetic pole shift? A volcanic eruption that shrouds the globe in a thick ashcloud for who knows how long? A major movement of tectonic plates? An out of the clear blue Ice Age?
Should indeed a deep freeze suddenly descend on us, as supply of ostensibly "green" sources is threadbare and will be for the foreseeable future wouldn't it be wise if we DON'T cut out or cripple our capability for nuclear or carbon based energy production? Presumably, pumping more CO2 in the air would BE a helpful countermeasure -
Of course, within any presumed power to counter, the thought mankind's response to unwelcome earth changes will produce a positive outcome is largely dependent on
1) Whether we ARE in possession of all the facts.
2) Whether or not we're fully factually-enabled, we actually know what we're doing.
Call me skeptical, but I marvel at how mankind's so-called "greatest minds" can be so absolutely sure mankind IS clearly the culprit currently causing climate change AND how readily so many of the rest unquestioningly accept their hard and fast conclusion. The sun revolves around the earth? I view this much the same: egocentric much?
So much as THAT was one whopper of an ass backwards assessment, some scientific community skeptics see excess CO2 NOT as the principle CAUSE, but primarily the RESULT OF rising temps. Talk about inconvenient, if true that means not only WE'RE not to blame, it shoots the notion mankind can reduce Mother Earth's "fever" -
There again, where does mankind get off deciding what the "right" temperature is for her - Isn't that supremely self-serving? It's not like humanity HASN'T had a propensity to look out for itself - And when in history haven't megalomaniacs at the top taken full avail of the propensity of those below not to know one when they see one?
Yet it's not as if folks lower on the totem pole can't get caught up in delusions of grandeur themselves. After all the ages of abuse heaped on her by humans, let's return Mother Earth to her "natural state"? So how exactly do we know what that is? She's been around way longer than we have and faced worse threats than us hasn't she!
Go off the deep end either way? Nah. Y'gotta know how to treat a lady dontcha? Clearly, consistently careless manhandling ain't respectful. OTOH, an utterly uncompromising hard-fisted hands-off approach ain't what she had in mind as fit and proper, I would think, so much as a mother accepts responsibility to provide for her children -
Still, striking ANY mutually beneficial balance between give and take isn't all too simple to come by - and well may you ask, just why IS that? I'd say George Carlin was on the right track there; the problem is people are f***ed. As it is we can't take care of OURSELVES. Take care of the planet, much less save it? It doesn't NEED saving -
So much as we will f*** things up to the point of self-extinction there's no need to worry about Mother Earth, she's quite capable of carring on without us. Eventually, some astronomic cataclysm will take her out too... but who knows? Maybe between now and then she'll have produced a species that IS just as smart as it thinks it is!
A Common Name, Two Eco-Movements -
Pick one - Sorry no grey shades allowed
ExtremesRus: Your one stop shirt shop!
Hmm. Systematic deliberate destruction of the environment by corporate interests, no less dedicated calculated deconstruction of modern civilization by the eco-militantly motivated - Would you believe I give both shirt styles two thumbs down, as neither one expresses my personal point of view concerning associated issues of import?
Corporations think they own the planet. On the other side of the coin is the idea one and all humans need keep uncompromisingly possessive watch on Terra. On its edge? I see another view: Mother Earth holds claim to US.
As a species we're fairly late addons to her living creature collection, and basically by design, we'll be in it only so long as she feels up to keeping us around. Sure, treating her right could extend our stay and too many demands made on her could easily cut it off early - Still, say a good size solar flare or asteroid hits her? ALL bets are off -
OTOH, regardless of anything we may do TO help her OR hurt her, anytime and at her choosing she can make things VERY uncomfortable for mankind. A magnetic pole shift? A volcanic eruption that shrouds the globe in a thick ashcloud for who knows how long? A major movement of tectonic plates? An out of the clear blue Ice Age?
Should indeed a deep freeze suddenly descend on us, as supply of ostensibly "green" sources is threadbare and will be for the foreseeable future wouldn't it be wise if we DON'T cut out or cripple our capability for nuclear or carbon based energy production? Presumably, pumping more CO2 in the air would BE a helpful countermeasure -
Of course, within any presumed power to counter, the thought mankind's response to unwelcome earth changes will produce a positive outcome is largely dependent on
1) Whether we ARE in possession of all the facts.
2) Whether or not we're fully factually-enabled, we actually know what we're doing.
Call me skeptical, but I marvel at how mankind's so-called "greatest minds" can be so absolutely sure mankind IS clearly the culprit currently causing climate change AND how readily so many of the rest unquestioningly accept their hard and fast conclusion. The sun revolves around the earth? I view this much the same: egocentric much?
So much as THAT was one whopper of an ass backwards assessment, some scientific community skeptics see excess CO2 NOT as the principle CAUSE, but primarily the RESULT OF rising temps. Talk about inconvenient, if true that means not only WE'RE not to blame, it shoots the notion mankind can reduce Mother Earth's "fever" -
There again, where does mankind get off deciding what the "right" temperature is for her - Isn't that supremely self-serving? It's not like humanity HASN'T had a propensity to look out for itself - And when in history haven't megalomaniacs at the top taken full avail of the propensity of those below not to know one when they see one?
Yet it's not as if folks lower on the totem pole can't get caught up in delusions of grandeur themselves. After all the ages of abuse heaped on her by humans, let's return Mother Earth to her "natural state"? So how exactly do we know what that is? She's been around way longer than we have and faced worse threats than us hasn't she!
Go off the deep end either way? Nah. Y'gotta know how to treat a lady dontcha? Clearly, consistently careless manhandling ain't respectful. OTOH, an utterly uncompromising hard-fisted hands-off approach ain't what she had in mind as fit and proper, I would think, so much as a mother accepts responsibility to provide for her children -
Still, striking ANY mutually beneficial balance between give and take isn't all too simple to come by - and well may you ask, just why IS that? I'd say George Carlin was on the right track there; the problem is people are f***ed. As it is we can't take care of OURSELVES. Take care of the planet, much less save it? It doesn't NEED saving -
So much as we will f*** things up to the point of self-extinction there's no need to worry about Mother Earth, she's quite capable of carring on without us. Eventually, some astronomic cataclysm will take her out too... but who knows? Maybe between now and then she'll have produced a species that IS just as smart as it thinks it is!
Give me a break. We are terrorists if we wear something other than a baseball cap on our heads while protesting? What a concept.Seitz said, "This is eco-terrorism. There is no doubt it is eco-terrorism when your head is wrapped like al-Qaida and people are yelling things at people and threatening them."
The heartbreaking necessity of lying about reality and the heartbreaking impossibility of lying about it.
― Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle
― Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle
We are being squeezed into some hard decisions. Save yourself or save the planet, your choice. In my every so humble opinion the planet does not need to be saved, it is said, that it has lived through 4 great civilizations, us being the 5th. Now that does not mean I don't care, "ah contriar", this is a beautiful place and a place of "plenty" when in the woods or my home I try to leave things just as pristine if not more when I leave, it matters what I do, I have no power over others! I show my gratitude by my actions. Radical environmentalists tend to hate humans, would rather we be gone and leave it to the animals, if that is there feeling, I have no problem if they want to "off" them selves. Just think what would happen if we all "picked" up after ourselves?
Carbon, this planet is carbon based for "cry'in out loud" almost all plant life on earth is carbon based, it takes in carbon and releases oxygen, so reduce the carbon, reduce the plant life, including your vegie garden. Our problem is the Powers that Be that want to control absolutely everything, and have managed to pit us against each other, while busily snatching & hording every thing that makes life bearable to the majority.
We live in a world of "Renewable" resources are cup is half full not half empty. "Radical" anything will destroy us.
O.K. I'm over my rant now.
Carbon, this planet is carbon based for "cry'in out loud" almost all plant life on earth is carbon based, it takes in carbon and releases oxygen, so reduce the carbon, reduce the plant life, including your vegie garden. Our problem is the Powers that Be that want to control absolutely everything, and have managed to pit us against each other, while busily snatching & hording every thing that makes life bearable to the majority.
We live in a world of "Renewable" resources are cup is half full not half empty. "Radical" anything will destroy us.
O.K. I'm over my rant now.
KARMA RULES
Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities, Can Make You Commit Atrocities': Voltaire
Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities, Can Make You Commit Atrocities': Voltaire
So much as we will f*** things up to the point of self-extinction there's no need to worry about Mother Earth, she's quite capable of carring on without us. Eventually, some astronomic cataclysm will take her out too... but who knows? Maybe between now and then she'll have produced a species that IS just as smart as it thinks it is!
Amen
KARMA RULES
Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities, Can Make You Commit Atrocities': Voltaire
Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities, Can Make You Commit Atrocities': Voltaire
Yeah. Clothes don't necessarily make the terrorist do they?Fan wrote: Give me a break. We are terrorists if we wear something other than a baseball cap on our heads while protesting? What a concept.
Though in the case of slogans on headwear or shirts, well maybe THERE - Depends to what extent those sentiments expressed in ANY WAY suggest the world would be a far better place if people behind what they're protesting (OR even anyone NOT of a mind to protest right along with them) were all resting comfortably in an upright prone position some six feet underground...
I don't condone property damage or violence, but wearing clothes (that say or look anything/anyway I/they like), chanting slogans and being somewhere to voice your displeasure are in fact a very basic right both our countries used to hold in high regard.
The fact is these corporations do not get approval for excavations and such through careful study, environmental impact assessments and the normal way you or I would have to do it. They bribe, cheat and steal. I don't know about this specific case, but I would be surprised if the mine had done everything the 'right' way. Not apologizing for anyone, just saying - maybe someone does have to go point out problems since the system has failed us so badly.
The fact is these corporations do not get approval for excavations and such through careful study, environmental impact assessments and the normal way you or I would have to do it. They bribe, cheat and steal. I don't know about this specific case, but I would be surprised if the mine had done everything the 'right' way. Not apologizing for anyone, just saying - maybe someone does have to go point out problems since the system has failed us so badly.
The heartbreaking necessity of lying about reality and the heartbreaking impossibility of lying about it.
― Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle
― Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle
I'm not so sure a slogan either on clothing or chanted can 'rightfully' express ANY sentiment a person might care to convey. As it is something like "Fock Capitalism" gets attention but ought not get them in legal trouble, at the same time 'Take Out The 1%' could easily be construed as advocating actions intended to cause physical harm.Fan wrote: I don't condone property damage or violence, but wearing clothes (that say or look anything/anyway I/they like), chanting slogans and being somewhere to voice your displeasure are in fact a very basic right both our countries used to hold in high regard.
Additionally, to voice displeasure "somewhere" doesn't mean by necessity ANYwhere you'd like to do it, does it? A basic right once held in high regard it may be, but unless allowed by the owner never did a protest permit extend to private property; no one is issued free license to trespass and verbally threaten at their pleasure, as was witnessed 'up nort' here in Wisconsin.
Interestingly enough would you believe it's come out the security firm hired by the mining company indeed has NO authority to work in WI-?? WTF is GOING ON, does nobody give a fock about attention to details anymore?
Maybe that's why Earth First! didn't care if they did everything the 'right way' either eh?Fan wrote: The fact is these corporations do not get approval for excavations and such through careful study, environmental impact assessments and the normal way you or I would have to do it. They bribe, cheat and steal. I don't know about this specific case, but I would be surprised if the mine had done everything the 'right' way.
Anahoo, here's where it gets problematic. Corporations are reckless gangs, governments are reckless gangs. Our whole system's been debased. If they pay ANY attention the public knows there's good odds of chicanery -
So, absent OR in possession of all facts in a case, we could oppose ALL new and existing mining, drilling, etc. Just to err on the side of caution, y'know? 'Course, if successful IN shutting down all that, civilization as we know it goes belly up - But hey, far better THAT than to compromise on anything in the defense of Mother Earth, right?
And now from someone who could do a superb job of that? Once again here's premier pointer-outer George Carlin, this time putting the finger on the problem of "people-clotting":Fan wrote: Not apologizing for anyone, just saying - maybe someone does have to go point out problems since the system has failed us so badly.
Even as he skewers our collective behavior, he’s on our side.
When Carlin speaks, you can actually feel him caring.
Well, sort of ...
“I got a dual problem here,” the comedian says on the phone from Santa Monica, Calif. “First of all, I like people. One by one, I think they’re great—for about a minute. You look in their eyes and you can see the universe. We’re all the same thing—we’re all stardust, and it’s all the same atoms floating around.”
Aw, that’s nice. But, remember, this is Carlin.
He continues: “I like people one at a time—I don’t like the (expletive) grouping. It’s when they group that bothers me—the clotting. People-clotting is what causes the trouble. As soon as it’s about eight or 12 guys, they start having a fight song or a (expletive) slogan, or they give themselves a name and buy baseball hats, or they get jackets with their name on it and they wear little arm bands, and pretty soon they got a list of people they don’t like, and pretty soon they’re marching over in the park—and it’s a (expletive) danger. Groups are a danger.
“They sacrifice their individual beauty for the sake of the group. And the loss of the individual is tragic.”
I don't disagree Riddick, I don't personally go out to these things although I often do in principle agree with the side trying to protect places or to stop injustice (environmental damage affects humans too, just for instance, we had a recent case of a mine illegally dumping tailings and it took a vocal minority to bring it to light). There is a place for protest, there is a place for business. Both will meet somewhere if business is to have any angel on its shoulder, and I think George would agree with me on that. You can't let either run roughshod, but both should have a voice, and be reported on fairly, if possible.
The heartbreaking necessity of lying about reality and the heartbreaking impossibility of lying about it.
― Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle
― Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle