Environmentalists

« **Reply #25 on:** October 22, 2005, 02:54:53 AM »

You should hate them. All too often they do not know what they are doing. Banning DDT is one example. Has cost an estimated 60 million lives to malaria. Another legacy of enviro-whackism.

In fact, I believe environmentalists rarely know what they are doing. The environment is too complex for anyone to understand that well. No one is smart enough to manage it. Just like economies. Socialism never works, partly for that reason. (Corruption is the other.) Neither can environmentalism, at least the way it ends up practiced.

Despite being totally in the dark as regards the macro-effects, environmentalists make far-ranging decisions, using government power to enforce them.

Intentions really don't mean anything. Results do. Get the environmentalists out of our lives! (Ha ha, little hope of that, I fear.)

« **Reply #26 on:** October 22, 2005, 07:16:09 AM »

Jim,
You need to do some further reading on DDT. First of all, it is still in limited use. The use of DDT was limited internationally (NOT just in the U.S.) in the early '70's primarily due to overuse that lead to DDT-resistant mosquitoes and an increase in malaria; El Salvador, for instance, saw in INCREASE in malaria deaths toward the end of their extremely heavy DDT usage. The Rachel Carson book is usually thought to be the proximate cause of the DDT ban, but it just isn't so. We've seen the same thing happen with various antibiotics as medicines; DDT overuse causes the same problems.

« **Reply #27 on:** October 22, 2005, 08:11:51 AM »

Jerry,
Do the soils/vegetation on the course do an adequate job of filtering the present day run-off into the wetlands? Could they filter the additional run-off of surface water from the development, which would contain lawn chemicals, soils, phosphates, etc., without the setback?

« **Reply #28 on:** October 22, 2005, 11:13:18 AM »

Jim: I can't tell you the results of any study of the issue but here is my assessment although I do not claim to be an expert. The property which is being developed into houses is currently a golf course and not wetlands. The new course would be made up of what is primarily the second golf course that now exists and which borders the wetlands. So the runoff from the new course would be the same as the old course. With respect to the houses, the land which is currently used as a golf course and treated with chemicals, etc. to maintain it, would now be turned into houses, streets, sidewalks and so on which would not be treated as grass is. The lawns of the homes would be treated but that is a small percentage of what is being treated now. So my conclusion is that the runoff from the upper property (The old course/ new houses) would be less than it is from the situation as it now exists. The only explanation which I could see as possible, but to me unfair, is that the current regulations did not exist when the courses were built and so they were grandfathered in, but now that there is going to be a new course, even though it is on the same land, the current regulations must be followed.

« **Reply #29 on:** October 22, 2005, 11:31:12 AM »

Quote from: A.G._Crockett on October 22, 2005, 07:16:09 AM

Jim,
You need to do some further reading on DDT. First of all, it is still in limited use. The use of DDT was limited internationally (NOT just in the U.S.) in the early '70's primarily due to overuse that lead to DDT-resistant mosquitoes and an increase in malaria; El Salvador, for instance, saw in INCREASE in malaria deaths toward the end of their extremely heavy DDT usage. The Rachel Carson book is usually thought to be the proximate cause of the DDT ban, but it just isn't so. We've seen the same thing happen with various antibiotics as medicines; DDT overuse causes the same problems.

DDT was not just limited internationally. It was banned in many nations. In 1972 EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus banned DDT in the U.S. He belonged to the Environmental Defense Fund, an environmental lobbying group.

The U.S. then pressured other countries to follow suit, for example by cutting off aid. This, plus pressure from the Greens, was very effective. As the World Health Organization said in 2000, "DDT has been banned from agricultural use in most countries since the 1970s due to its damaging effects on the environment."

Until the ban, DDT had prevented vast numbers of deaths. In 1970 the US National Academy of Sciences stated: "To only a few chemicals does man owe so great a debt as to DDT. . . . In little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that otherwise would have been inevitable."

Then DDT was banned and mostly stopped. Malaria cases started soaring again. Sub-Saraha Africa is most at risk: there have been an estimated 300 million cases of malaria there since the DDT ban. It is commonly estimated that 1 to 2 million people a year now die from malaria: a total of 50 million preventable deaths since the ban/stoppage.

South Africa stopped using DDT in 1996. Until then the total number of malaria cases was below 10,000 and there were seldom more than 30 deaths per year. By 2000, the country saw malaria cases skyrocket to 65,000. 458 people were killed. After re-introducing DDT, malaria cases plummented by 80 percent in one year. Next door, in Mozambique, which doesn't use DDT, malaria rates remain stratospheric. Similar experiences have been recorded in Zambia and other African countries. Also, I believe, in Equador and other South American nations.

The responses of the Greens is chilling. In 1971 it was pointed out to Charles Wurster of the Environmental Defense Fund that DDT saved the lives of poor people in poor countries. Hc said: 'So what? People are the main cause of our problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them and this is as good a way as anything.'

And according to junkscience.com, a population control official at the Agency for International Development said "rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing".

There are thousands of sources on DDT and its effect on malaria. The resistance you point to was nowhere near complete. DDT still killed the vast majority of mosquitos. It still does, which is why it works when used again. On top of that, its damage to the so-called environment is negligible.

Of course, if only resistance were involved, a ban would not be needed in case, would it?

« **Reply #30 on:** October 22, 2005, 01:51:03 PM »

Jerry,
It keeps getting more confusing every post you write. I don't know where to start on your analysis of the situation. Many of your presumptions are way off the mark. Not knowing the specifics to your situation it is hard to tell the real story, but many of the land use regulations deal with permeable and non permeable surfaces. Houses and roads greatly reduce the available area for rain to infiltrate. The run off is increased dramatically.
Also the regulations have nothing to do with the regulations in effect when the property was developed. It is only concerned with the present day land use.
From reading your posts it appears that there is more not known than is known from both sides of the equation.
And as far as the DDT comments, it is dangerous to keep that attitude. This issue was decided long ago and perpetuating this line of thought is one reason the "environmental" activists are often unwilling to bend. It is time both sides gave in a little.

« **Reply #31 on:** October 22, 2005, 02:01:43 PM »

Jerry: We understand you are upset about the fate of your golf course, but if you don't stop sticking your foot in your mouth you are going to make this thread a bookmarked stop for all environmental activists who want to stop golf course development.

Let me explain runoff just a bit more for you.

When rain hits the ground, a high percentage of it just soaks into the ground unless it is raining very hard, or there is a lot of surface drainage in one direction and the water starts to "sheet flow." There is more sheet flow when you have impervious surfaces such as roofs and pavement, and there are chemicals in those things too, which is why environmental agencies want there to be a grass buffer (even a golf course!) between the houses and the wetlands.

The best case environmentally is for the water (and any chemicals in it) to soak into the ground. Turfgrass is seen as minimizing sheet flow and catching any soil erosion, and the thatch and roots under the ground are excellent for binding up chemicals so they don't move through into groundwater. That's why you see buffer strips of grass at the edge of agricultural fields.

Ultimately, the best environmental defense for golf courses is that they are a better alternative to housing or to commerical development or to agriculture. They'll never be as good as "no development" however, and there will always be some people who want their neighbors to be denied the right to build anything within eyesight.

« **Reply #32 on:** October 22, 2005, 05:06:11 PM »

Tom: Thanks for the explanation - I do not know much about this issue and that is why I started the thread with a question as I was trying to understand the issues involved.

« **Reply #33 on:** October 22, 2005, 05:37:46 PM »

Jim Nugent writes:
In 1971 it was pointed out to Charles Wurster of the Environmental Defense Fund that DDT saved the lives of poor people in poor countries. Hc said: 'So what? People are the main cause of our problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them and this is as good a way as anything.'

I don't know much about the other stuff, but this is one of those silly quotes that won't die because there are people who don't want it to die. If you can find anywhere that has those words actually coming out of Charles Wurster's mouth you can be the hero of the anti-environmental movement.

It is a hearsay quote from Environmental Defense Fund attorney Victor Yanncone after he was fired by the Environmental Defense Fund.

Dixey Lee Ray in Environmental Overkill quotes it from House Hearings on the Federal Pesticide Control Act of 1971 Wurster was not at those hearings. John Rarick at the hearings was questioning Edward Lee Rogers.

Rarick: A reporter asked the same Dr. Wurster whether or not the use of DDT wouldn't encourage further use of very toxic materials, including nerve gas derivatives, and he said, "probably."

The Reporter then asked him if these organo phosphates did not have a long record of killing people. And Dr. Wurster said "so what? People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them and this is as good a way as any."

Is this the same Dr. Wurster that you are later to give us an affidavit from?

Rogers: I would say probably not. In fact, I would say very emphatically that I would doubt very much that it is the same Dr. Wurster. I think that perhaps it is a figment of someone's imagination somewhere.

This is the way to get a misquote into the congressional record so then shoddy book writers can use that quote for many years to come. It's a cute technique (used by both sides) but smart people should be able to see right through it.

And according to junkscience.com, a population control official at the Agency for International Development said "rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing".

Got anything a little more specific than a population control official? Geez, did you know the word gullible isn't in the dictionary?

By using things this silly you really hurt your argument. If you go and believe every silly thing you read it is probible your whole argument crumbles if taken apart piece by piece.

Dan King

Quote

Misquotations are the only quotations that are never misquoted.
--Hesketh Pearson

« **Reply #34 on:** October 22, 2005, 08:06:14 PM »

Jim,
The movement to limit (NOT end) DDT use began in the 60's, a full decade before the international agreement that actually set the limits went into effect. That agreement ended the use of DDT as an agricultural insecticide, NOT as an agent in malaria control. The concerns were not primarily environmental, though there are some very serious ones; the concern was overuse, which suspected to creat DDT-resistant mosquitoes. The U.S. joined in the international agreement for that reason, and the U.S. govt. continues to use DDT for mosquito control under the terms of the international agreement. It is true that DDT is not available as an insecticide for agriculture any longer; this is where the overuse was occurring. The more extensive ban in the U.S. came later, and malaria is not an issue here.

I don't mean to take the side of the environmentalists here, but giving them the credit (or blame, in this case) for the DDT agreement is revisionist history, and quoting the number of deaths since the 1972 international agreement on DDT is very misleading at best. DDT is still in widespread use in tropical countries for mosquito control, primarily because it is affordable; it just isn't used in agriculture.

Junkscience.com pursues a pretty heavy agenda in their reports, and this is a good example. I don't mean to demonize any company, but I think much of the funding for junkscience.com comes from Exxon-Mobil, a company with less than a stellar environmental record, and a heavy agenda of its own.

« **Reply #35 on:** October 22, 2005, 08:09:59 PM »

With my upfront apologies to Ran and my numerous socialist friends:

Dan King,

You freaking hippie! If you applied the same editorial standards to the left and the envirowhackos we would all be rolling in tears by now. Did you give Algore and his laughable screed on the environment the same level of scrutiny? I got to believe that any toughtful person would find his condemnation of the internal combustion engine to be a little less than rational, not to say anything about scholarly.

On the other hand, years and years of attending Dead concerts may have left in such a state that you actually believe some of this drivel.

Having been to Africa a few times, let me just say that the population there is much more concerned about surviving mosquito and Tsetse fly bites than putting up with noxious or unpleasant fumes. But most of these folks are not thinking about "making a difference" with their individual lives. Unlike nearly all of our activists, they are just trying to fend for their families and survive. Maslow did have something on the ball, didn't he!

By the way, how do you get colored (blue in your case; Mucci uses green) fonts on your postings? I know you probably think in color, but there must be a tech trick that maybe even I could understand.

Jerry Kugler,

You must defer to the greater knowledge and highest intentions of these really smart, environmentally aware people. Ditto for the trial lawyers' bar which protects us from the evil-doer capitalists. Not that fund raising and 35% contingency fees (or 10% of a multi-million dollar settlement for just "refering" or "consulting" on a new cause of action) have anything to do with it. It is the principle. We all know it is a fact that even Dan King can't disprove- business and Bush are just driving this country straight into the ground.

On the serious side, the time when property rights had much meaning are long past. Zoning and permitting in many places requires vast amounts of money, great political connections, and much patience.

This really came to light to me when playing golf with an L.A. based developer at a very exclusive club and he explained how he really liked the process in CA. He knows how to navigate in the hyper-regulated environment and has the $$$$ and contacts to suceed. As he put it so bluntly but elegantly, he can come into Texas and compete with anybody quite easily. Only the very strongest dare to challenge him in his market and there is plenty of business for these few to go around.

Of course, my 2,500 s.f. house with a pool is worth $200,000 15 minutes from dowtown Dallas and Fort Worth, and probably $2MM in a similar neighborhood in L.A. Who gets hurt in this situation? Not the rich guys, but those who have to commute hours in order to afford a mortgage.

Now I am not saying that Tom Doak feels the way he writes because of greed and self-interest. I think that Tom is a well-motivated young man. It is much easier, however, for those already established to feel so heady about the environment. It is the young, hard-working professional who has to choose between a $200,000 initiation fee at a B- golf club in CA or a three-bedroom house for his young family 60 miles from his work.

I too am an environmentalist. The data that I see shows more forestation today in the U.S. than at the time of our founding. I've seen information that the acreage "protected" under wetlands legislation as currently defined is greater than the amount of true natural wetlands since these surveys were done (a retention pond built by a farmer which holds but a dribble of water in most normal years is now covered and protected). Recent satellite data shows that the ice cap in Greenland is actually getting thicker and expanding, yet global warming is taken as a "scientific" fact.

Yes, Bush is behind it all, and we are all going to hell for it. Oops, hell implies religion, and that too is bad. Pardon me, we are all heading toward an uncomfortable place.

In the meantime, if we want to think about what has been worse for golf- technology or over-regulation- I wonder if there is a good study out there that shows the effect of environmental regulation on the cost of a golf course.

Just a Phase I can cost $20,000+ on a large property. Add the impact studies, follow-ups, bird, plant, and wildlife surveys (I once had a potential sale fall apart because it was alleged that migrating bald eagles would roost on a some trees every few years for a couple of days and the cost and time for the study on this $100,000 sale would have had a $20,000+ impact), mitigation, negotiated "solutions" to non-existing problems, etc., and the bucks can get very sizable. Is there any connection between the high cost of real estate intensive products and activities and extensive regulation? I am probably full of it, but I think perhaps that this is worth exploring.

Just think, Wild Horse was built for a $1.5 MM turn-key. This is less than half of the cost just to fight the environmental opposition over a 10 year+ period for a golf course on a already partially polluted site. It is my understanding that the owner and developers have finally given up.

« **Reply #36 on:** October 23, 2005, 05:00:41 AM »

Lou Duran writes:
You freaking hippie!

Sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll. They were good when I was young and I still enjoy 'em, just not in the same quantities as when I was a kid.

If you applied the same editorial standards to the left and the envirowhackos we would all be rolling in tears by now.

I like to think I do. The case of Charles Wurster and Victor Yanncone is something I looked into a long time ago, because the quote sounded so far out there. Ends up nobody other than Yanncone had ever heard Wurster utter those words and Yanncone had a obvious grudge.

Did you give Algore and his laughable screed on the environment the same level of scrutiny?

It took me a while to figure out who Algore is. My first guess was some Portuguese poet I've never heard of.

I remember when Gore's book came out there were many things in the book just as bizarre as the Wurster quote that never happened. I would think if someone posted some of Gore's bizarre claims I would jump on them also -- but I also get the sense you would beat me to it.

Besides, you should let the whole Gore thing go. Your Republican Supreme Court made sure Gore returned to being a meaningless twit. Unfortunately at the same time they gave a different meaningless twit a pretty important job.

On the other hand, years and years of attending Dead concerts may have left in such a state that you actually believe some of this drivel.

And I'm betting you joined one too many Young Republican rallies to actually look at both sides of an issue.

I'll guarantee you one thing, we had lots more fun at Dead concerts than you ever had at your Young Republican rallies.

Besides what drivel is it I'm suppose to believe? That Wurster really didn't say what your buddies claim he said. I think when you claim someone said something it is up to you to prove it, not up to me to prove he never said it.

Please, if you can find any documentation of Wurster saying what Nugent claims he said, go for it. You could be the hero of your fellow travellers.

Just because you are gullible for the right doesn't mean everyone who disagrees with you is gullible for the left.

Having been to Africa a few times, let me just say that the population there is much more concerned about surviving mosquito and Tsetse fly bites than putting up with noxious or unpleasant fumes.

I've never been to Africa but my son lived in Benin for a little over a year.

But go ahead and find something showing me supporting any ban on DDT. I guess in young Republican world if you dare to question you are the enemy.

By the way, how do you get colored (blue in your case; Mucci uses green) fonts on your postings?

Click here to see how to use YaBBC is your posts

We all know it is a fact that even Dan King can't disprove- business and Bush are just driving this country straight into the ground.

I've tried parsing this sentence, but I can't. It sounds like the opposite of what you intended to say.

I'm a fan of business, not a fan of George W.'s, and unless you are a fan of really large deficits, you should also be no fan of George W.'s. But then I guess when they make you swallow the Republican pill you are required to swallow the entire thing. Can't have people chipping off pieces.

The data that I see shows more forestation today in the U.S. than at the time of our founding.

Please share this data. I guess since the U.S. at the founding only covered the Eastern seabord and the U.S. of today covers a much bigger area your data might just be right. But it would be better if you tried comparing apples to apples.

Recent satellite data shows that the ice cap in Greenland is actually getting thicker and expanding, yet global warming is taken as a "scientific" fact.

Aren't you making the same mistake as the greenies, using short-term data to prove a long-term question?

Dan King

Quote

Every politician we have, liberal or conservative, who gets caught drinking or chasing women is thrown out of office. It's backwards. It's more dangerous to have a clean-living President with his finger on the button. He thinks he is going right to heaven. You want to feel safe with a leader? Give me a guy who fights in bars and cheats on his wife. This is a man who wants to putt off Judgment Day as long as possible.
--Larry Miller

« **Reply #37 on:** October 23, 2005, 05:08:06 AM »

Quote from: Dan King on October 22, 2005, 05:37:46 PM

Jim Nugent writes:
In 1971 it was pointed out to Charles Wurster of the Environmental Defense Fund that DDT saved the lives of poor people in poor countries. Hc said: 'So what? People are the main cause of our problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them and this is as good a way as anything.'

I don't know much about the other stuff, but this is one of those silly quotes that won't die because there are people who don't want it to die. If you can find anywhere that has those words actually coming out of Charles Wurster's mouth you can be the hero of the anti-environmental movement.

It is a hearsay quote from Environmental Defense Fund attorney Victor Yanncone after he was fired by the Environmental Defense Fund.

Dixey Lee Ray in Environmental Overkill quotes it from House Hearings on the Federal Pesticide Control Act of 1971 Wurster was not at those hearings. John Rarick at the hearings was questioning Edward Lee Rogers.

Rarick: A reporter asked the same Dr. Wurster whether or not the use of DDT wouldn't encourage further use of very toxic materials, including nerve gas derivatives, and he said, "probably."

The Reporter then asked him if these organo phosphates did not have a long record of killing people. And Dr. Wurster said "so what? People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them and this is as good a way as any."

Is this the same Dr. Wurster that you are later to give us an affidavit from?

Rogers: I would say probably not. In fact, I would say very emphatically that I would doubt very much that it is the same Dr. Wurster. I think that perhaps it is a figment of someone's imagination somewhere.

This is the way to get a misquote into the congressional record so then shoddy book writers can use that quote for many years to come. It's a cute technique (used by both sides) but smart people should be able to see right through it.

And according to junkscience.com, a population control official at the Agency for International Development said "rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing".

Got anything a little more specific than a population control official? Geez, did you know the word gullible isn't in the dictionary?

By using things this silly you really hurt your argument. If you go and believe every silly thing you read it is probible your whole argument crumbles if taken apart piece by piece.

Dan King
Quote
Misquotations are the only quotations that are never misquoted.
--Hesketh Pearson

Dan, you're right that the quote comes through Yannacone. I agree that is less reliable than a direct quote.

At the same time, Yannacone was more than just an attorney for the EDF. He was co-founder. Edward Lee Rogers, who made the sort-of denial you quote, was not a dispassionate source. He was chief counsel for the EDF.

I don't know how Rogers knows what Wurster said to Yannacone. Rogers does not deny the statement, btw. He says he doubts it. So we have the EDF's co-founder attributing the statement to Wurster (EDF's chief scientist) while the EDF's attorney makes a non-denial denial.

Whether or not the quote is real, the EDF helped lead the charge against DDT. The EDF says it "began a campaign that led to a permanent, nationwide ban on DDT in 1972." In fact, Ruckelshaus -- the EPA administrator who banned DDT -- was an EDF member.

I have not been able to find any name for the other quote. I agree there is reasonable doubt about it. But there are plenty of other quotes to choose from, that show how unreliable policy based on environmental "science" can be:

Stephen Schneider:"[W]e [other environmentalists] have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective[in getting loads of media coverage] and being honest."

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits....Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world" -- Christine Stewart 1998, Canada's Minister of the Environment as quoted by the Calgary Herald

"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000….This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age" -- Kenneth E. F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day 1970

"There is a finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the Earth within the next 100 years" -- from a U.S. National Academy of Sciences Report, 1975

"We may get to the point where the ONLY WAY of saving the world will be for the industrial civilization to collapse" -- Maurice Strong, Secretary General Rio Summit, 1992

"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer" -- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb

"Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion" -- Paul Ehrlich

Environmentalists make terrifying claims. That is their M.O. Most of their predictions have not come true, though, from Malthus and Erlich (true blood brothers)...to the global ice ages forecast in the 1970's...to the end of civilization from environmental disaster that gets warned about every few years. Instead, we have more food, more energy, longer lives, more wealth, than ever before.

« **Reply #38 on:** October 23, 2005, 09:06:19 AM »

An interesting side note (well, I thought it was interesting) to environmental debates: There were 17 rights enumerated in the early drafts for the Bill of Rights. We know the ten that were accepted but one that wasn't was a citizens right to a clean and safe environment. It was proposed by James Madison.

« **Reply #39 on:** October 23, 2005, 09:35:05 AM »

Jerry - the key is in Tom's post #32.

Essentially things like golf courses are very good, and things like parking lots are very bad. That's why you see all those man-made retention basins - they need to put the runoff somewhere, because it's unfortunately not being absorbed into the ground.

That's where wetlands are valuable. They provide awesome biodiversity, and place for water to go. Plus, they tend to clean the water. But wetlands and golf can coexist well.

Honestly, I think you're getting the shaft from the folks that own your course. I think they're using the wetland thing as an excuse to bring us more McMansions.

No environmentalist would choose McMansions over a golf course!

-----------------------------

The problem with DDT isn't the fact that it controls mosquitos - it certainly works there. (Listen to Rodney Crowell's song, 'Telephone Road' - cool line about breathing in all that good DDT as a young kid - it's actually a pleasant memory to him). The real problem is that it affects the top of the food chain - the raptors. DDT was probably the single biggest reason the bald eagle was almost wiped out. The banning of DDT in North America is the reason the bald eagle is back.

To get the color, just preface your text with a <color=Red> your text </color> - but replace the <> with brackets those things to the left of the "P" on your keyboard. You can change 'Red' to other colors like blue, green, etc...

« **Reply #40 on:** October 23, 2005, 11:12:32 AM »

Dan: After I saw French Creek I was convinced that environmental issues and golf courses and development can coexist. I agree with you that the present owners made a half hearted attempt at getting the project approved with the includsion of a golf course. The new owners were never really interested in a golf course and did not believe believe it was a necessary amenity in order to make the project successful. That is why I started the thread with the question of whether I should blame the environmentalists. Perhaps if they had Gil Hanse involved in the project it would have been successful.

« **Reply #41 on:** October 23, 2005, 01:37:41 PM »

Dan King,

Thanks for the link.

I am glad for your sake that with age, a little moderation came with it. Though your thought of giving up playing golf physically in favor of doing it mentally has limited appeal, I doubt it would be very satisfying for me. I have always meant to ask you, in the course of such an exercise, do you ever get lost? Or is the routing so good that even years of "Sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll" can't screw things up?

In reference to Algore, surely only those on a five year-long electric kool-aid hangover can hold to that nonesense (that only the Supremes kept him from becoming President Al Gore). I thought every count, re-count, simulation of a re-count, and best-case scenario (for Algore) had him losing Florida. Does it escape the high-minded folks that all Big Al had to do was win his own home state to have achieved his dream? I understand, those who were closest to him and knew him best didn't have the necessities to choose correctly. Just ask that pilar of the popular media Walter Conkrite. He knows what's happening. Afterall, he covered Viet Nam and showed us how wrong we all were!

As to my time on the fine campus of Ohio State, I must confess that I was only able to attend two Dead concerts in Columbus and one in Indianapolis. I must also admit that I didn't hit the real hard stuff, with wine and a bit of grass shared generously by others sufficient to alter my state so as to fully enjoy the spectacle and the music.

But to show you how screwed-up and backward Ohio was even then (let's not forget Kent State in '69), the Dead couldn't sell out St. Johns Arena so they were shifted over to the much smaller, but acoustically superior Mershon Auditorium. Come to think of it, straight and with a better sound environment, Garcia's guitar work did not seem to be all that compelling. Oh well, I still enjoy the albums when I have a turntable that works.

BTW, that's three more Dead events than young Republican meetings I attended. Just as then like now, The Reps are much too liberal/pro big brother for me as well. They just come at it from a different angle: sort of like a variation on the same theme.

No, I don't think that Bush has done well on the budget and I don't like large deficits. However, I don't think the problem lies on the revenue side. Bush has tried very hard to appease the opposition with nothing but dismal results.

As to information on trees and wetlands, you have shown a remarkable ability to source data on all sorts of arcane subjects. Selective perception being what it is, I've come across various surveys without looking for them and I invite you to do your own search.

Finally, I love wildlife. Bald eagles are particularly fascinating to me and I have spent quite a bit of time viewing them and studying the literature. As with the ring-neck pheasant in the Midwest, they were severely impacted through the 1970s in part by certain chemicals like DDT they ingested through the food chain which apparently softened their egg shells.

A value judgement was made that the negatives of using such products outweighed the positives. It is inarguable that many people have died as a result of the ban of DDT and other insect and pest control products. It is my opinion, that the efficacy and ethics of these bans should be openly debated as well as all issues relating to the environment.

How many jobs and lives are worth the preservation of a toad, snail-darter, or prairie weed? Can that 36 hole golf course be turned to 18 holes with sufficient housing to make the deal attractive to the owners/developers without SERIOUSLY damaging the ecosystem? Unfortunately, in current times, these things can't be discussed in a civil, thoughtful, and comprehensive manner. Too much ego, money, and spare time clouds even the sharpest minds.

Again, my apologies to Ran on participating in this political discussion against his wishes.

By all means, do give your favorite environmentalist a hug. We all have a need for love and recognition.

« **Reply #42 on:** October 23, 2005, 03:57:15 PM »

Jim Nugent writes:
I don't know how Rogers knows what Wurster said to Yannacone. Rogers does not deny the statement, btw. He says he doubts it. So we have the EDF's co-founder attributing the statement to Wurster (EDF's chief scientist) while the EDF's attorney makes a non-denial denial.

Once again, Yannacone was fired from the EDF and then reported on the alleged Wurster quote.

Tell me, how can Rogers say Wurster never said something? Can you ever say someone didn't say something? You even admit that he can't "I don't know how Rogers knows what Wurster said to Yannacone."

The burden of proof isn't on the person denying the quote, its on the person making the allegation. I can say I heard Jim Nugent says he gets a stiffy for Condi Rice. Try to disprove that. Shouldn't I have the burden of proof? Rogers does the right thing, dismissing the whole thing as silly.

More from the House Hearings on the Federal Pesticide Control Act of 1971:
Mr. Rogers: "I think this is a very serious matter, that you are bringing up here, and I do not know what the rules of the committee are, but we are allowing to be read into the record what is notorious hearsay, without the advantage of rebuttal or examination of the people who reportedly made these statements. If there is any procedure for expurging this in the record, I would ask that it be done."

Instead of removing the comments from the record, they put a copy of the speech into their files. They did allow Wurster to submit a letter that was included in the transcripts which for some bizarre reason Dixey Lee Ray decided not to include in her book.

I wish to deny all of the statements of Mr, Yannacone. His remarks about me, attributed to me, and about other trustees of EDF are purely fantasy and bear no resemblance to the truth. It was in part because Mr. Yannacone lost touch with reality that he was dismissed by EDF, and his remarks of May 1970 indicate that his inability to separate fact from fiction has accelerated.

Is that enough of a denial for you to stop using that quote?

Whether or not the quote is real

What do you mean whether or not the quote is real?

Whether or not you get a stiffy for Condi Rice, you use a bunch of other quotes that probably have about the same validity as the Wurster one. If you get around to admitting the Wurster one is bogus I'll bother reading the others. I'm not going to take my time with a bunch of undocumented quotes when the one you used earlier in the post has been shown to be bogus and you still won't bother to admit it.

Dan Herrmann writes:
Essentially things like golf courses are very good, and things like parking lots are very bad.

I took an environmental science class once and the instructor was saying something about all the great soil in the Santa Clara County now lying under asphalt. I asked, does something bad happen to the soil under the asphalt? He said no. So aren't we conserving it? This great soil will still be there for some future generation nice and preserved, ready for if farm land or golf courses ever have higher monetary value than office parks and parking lots.

Lou Duran writes:
Though your thought of giving up playing golf physically in favor of doing it mentally has limited appeal, I doubt it would be very satisfying for me. I have always meant to ask you, in the course of such an exercise, do you ever get lost?

I've found in my life getting lost has been some of my favorite times.

I'm actually out playing a bit more often in the physical world. I've played golf around a half dozen times this year and am going out to play again this Tuesday.

I thought every count, re-count, simulation of a re-count, and best-case scenario (for Algore) had him losing Florida.

Hind site it a cool tool. But Bush v. Gore was an all-around bad decision. The Supremes themselves agree as the high court expressly disallowed application of Bush v. Gore as precedent.

Besides the Supremes made an earlier poor decision related to the election when they ignored the U.S. Constitution.

Amendment 12: The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves;

Bush and Cheney should not have won Texas' electors. Sure, it is a silly part of the 12th Amendment but that shouldn't have made it any less binding.

How about Justice Scalia refusing to recuse himself from Cheney v. District Court despite a duck hunting vacation with Cheney just prior to the case.

Personally I would have preferred no president from 2001-2005. It might have been a nice experiment. Unfortunately we would have still had congress and the supremes.

Just ask that pilar of the popular media Walter Conkrite.

I surely will next time we get together.

Come to think of it, straight and with a better sound environment, Garcia's guitar work did not seem to be all that compelling.

There's the problem. You weren't suppose to go see the Dead straight. Who knows what they might have done to your brain.

Bush has tried very hard to appease the opposition with nothing but dismal results.

Republicans control the House, the Senate and the Supremes. Now we are blaming Bush's failures on the Democratic party?

In the words of Will Rogers: "I don't belong to any organized party. I am a Democrat."

It is inarguable that many people have died as a result of the ban of DDT and other insect and pest control products.

Once again, I have not made a single argument in favor of DDT prohibition. Maybe you are having trouble understanding that because of your experience seeing the Dead straight when you were young.

Dan King

Quote

What would happen if the President, the Supreme Court, and all members of both houses of Congress were stoned out of their gourds twenty-four hours a day? The chilling truth is, it might be an improvement.
--Allan Sherman

« **Reply #43 on:** October 23, 2005, 06:06:57 PM »

Dan King,

Tell me that you are aware of the results of independent recounts conducted by several news organizations with respect to the election in Floirida.

Then tell me the results.

And, if guys like Allan Sherman and you think you can do a better job than those folks, then, by all means, step up to the plate and take your turn at bat.

Don't forget, you have a date on November 19th to provide us with your simplified rules of golf. You only wanted two weeks, but, I thought some additional time would help you.

The results you produce will provide some insight with respect to the quality of your work and help us determine the merits of your positon relative to being able to do a better job with the rules of golf, and at running the country.

Talk is cheap.

The proof remains in the pudding.

« **Reply #44 on:** October 23, 2005, 07:55:53 PM »

Patrick_Mucci writes:
Tell me that you are aware of the results of independent recounts conducted by several news organizations with respect to the election in Floirida.

Like I said in a response to Lou, hind site doesn't change the fact that Bush v. Gore was bad law. You only have to look to the court itself when they disallowed application of Bush v. Gore as precedent.

And, if guys like Allan Sherman and you think you can do a better job than those folks, then, by all means, step up to the plate and take your turn at bat.

Like I said, I think leaving the office empty would be better for the country than what we have. I didn't say replace Bush with Sherman, Gore or myself, just go without. It can't hurt us anymore than what we have now.

Don't forget, you have a date on November 19th to provide us with your simplified rules of golf. You only wanted two weeks, but, I thought some additional time would help you.

Didn't see my response it that other thread? I'll quote myself:
And what would be the point? Do you think the USGA would pay the slightest attention to what I came up with? Heck, right now they have a book that explains how to handle the rules by their own Richard Tufts and they ignore it. Why would they pay attention to me?

It's not like you have a long and cherished history of admitting you are wrong even when given proof. Let's assume I did spend a few weeks to come up with simplified rules, what are the odds you would admit my rules were better?

Talk is cheap.

So then figure out an incentive for me to go forward with this mental masturbation.

Dan King

Quote

The majestic egalitarianism of the law, which forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steel bread.
--Jacques Anatole Françous Thibault

« **Reply #45 on:** October 23, 2005, 08:23:05 PM »

Quote from: Lou_Duran on October 23, 2005, 01:37:41 PM

Dan King,

A value judgement was made that the negatives of using such products outweighed the positives. It is inarguable that many people have died as a result of the ban of DDT and other insect and pest control products. It is my opinion, that the efficacy and ethics of these bans should be openly debated as well as all issues relating to the environment.

How many jobs and lives are worth the preservation of a toad, snail-darter, or prairie weed? Can that 36 hole golf course be turned to 18 holes with sufficient housing to make the deal attractive to the owners/developers without SERIOUSLY damaging the ecosystem? Unfortunately, in current times, these things can't be discussed in a civil, thoughtful, and comprehensive manner. Too much ego, money, and spare time clouds even the sharpest minds.

Again, my apologies to Ran on participating in this political discussion against his wishes.

By all means, do give your favorite environmentalist a hug. We all have a need for love and recognition.

Lou,
That many have died from the DDT regulations currently in place is not only not unarguable, it isn't true. DDT is still in common use around the tropics as one of the primary malaria-control agents, and could be used here for that reason if malaria ever again became a problem in the U.S. What it is NOT used for is an agricultural insecticide, which has nothing to do with malaria. 98 countries agreed to this ban on agricultural use of DDT over 30 years ago. Check the facts on this, and let me know what you think.

I don't know the answer to how many jobs should be sacrificed for snail darters either. These are very tough questions, and do indeed demand civil discourse, which is in short supply these days.

« **Reply #46 on:** October 23, 2005, 09:02:27 PM »

Quote from: Lou_Duran on October 22, 2005, 08:09:59 PM

Just a Phase I can cost $20,000+ on a large property. Add the impact studies, follow-ups, bird, plant, and wildlife surveys (I once had a potential sale fall apart because it was alleged that migrating bald eagles would roost on a some trees every few years for a couple of days and the cost and time for the study on this $100,000 sale would have had a $20,000+ impact), mitigation, negotiated "solutions" to non-existing problems, etc., and the bucks can get very sizable. Is there any connection between the high cost of real estate intensive products and activities and extensive regulation? I am probably full of it, but I think perhaps that this is worth exploring.

Lou,

With all due respect, the value of a Phase 1 is not the identification of the impact of development on potentially environmentally endangered species that none of us have every heard of, it's the identification of potentially toxic contamination on a site, which leads to a Phase 2 (investigation) and the eventual clearance or cleanup of the site. If it wasn't for this approach in the past 30 years most of the successful cleanup of our environment wouldn't have taken place. Of course, if Dubya gets his way and the Clean Water Act goes away, we run the real risk of continuing to ruin the environment by not addressing the hundreds, possibly thousands of contaminants, not yet identified with a Maximum Contaminant Level for public drinking water that forces its cleanup. As an example, perchlorate, a key ingredient in rocket fuels, has significantly contaminated major bodies of water such as the Colorado River, yet, since there is no MCL for public drinking water systems, continues to have limited work done to clean this up even though multiple technologies exist for doing it. Boeing is on the hook for over $1B in cleanup costs when this is finally (if ever) made into law, yet is spending far less than they should annually since there is no regulatory pressure.

« **Reply #47 on:** October 23, 2005, 10:49:07 PM »

Quote from: Dan King on October 23, 2005, 03:57:15 PM

Dan King
Quote
What would happen if the President, the Supreme Court, and all members of both houses of Congress were stoned out of their gourds twenty-four hours a day? The chilling truth is, it might be an improvement.
--Allan Sherman

Since you evidently forgot what you posted I thought I'd refresh your memory.

As I said, anytime you and Allan think you can do a better job at any one of the above job descriptions, step up to the plate and take your turn at bat.

With respect to the rules of golf, you made the boast to this site that you could come up with a better, simpler set in two weeks. I gave you four weeks so as not to pressure you.

At this stage, it's not a case of satisfying the USGA, it's a case of satisfying us, standing up to your proclamations and proving your modus operandi isn't just making irresponsible, hollow statements. Look at it as another opportunity for you to step up to the plate

If your rules pass the test of scrutiny on this site I'll be amongst the first to commend you.
And, I'll write a personal letter to the USGA recommending that they review and consider adopting those rules that merit adoption.

You made the boast, so let's see if you can come up with a better, simplified set of rules in the next four weeks that the USGA and R & A haven't been able to come up with over the past century.

As to the incentive to do so, it should be clear as a bell to you.
To preserve your credibility and the integrity of your posts.
[/color]

« **Reply #48 on:** October 23, 2005, 11:03:29 PM »

Isn't it odd that we are not ALL enviromentialist? After all, we live here and I doubt anyone would want to fill their HOME with sh%t and poisonous air and filth. The fact that we are NOTHING without clean water should be incentive enough to wantt to do everything we can to insure a lasting supply of clean water.

Is the POWER of GREED so great that we would sh%t in our living room and poison the water we REQUIRE? Apparently, for some that post here.

« **Reply #49 on:** October 23, 2005, 11:16:15 PM »

Quote from: Craig Sweet on October 23, 2005, 11:03:29 PM

Isn't it odd that we are not ALL enviromentialist? After all, we live here and I doubt anyone would want to fill their HOME with sh%t and poisonous air and filth. The fact that we are NOTHING without clean water should be incentive enough to wantt to do everything we can to insure a lasting supply of clean water.

Hundreds, if not thousands of years ago, what do you think the quality of the water in a stream-river was for the tribe that lived downstream from the other tribes ?

No one is against clean water.
They're against extremists and the lack of commons sense.[/color]

Is the POWER of GREED so great that we would sh%t in our living room and poison the water we REQUIRE? Apparently, for some that post here.

Greed has nothing to do with it.
You continue with your penchant for exageration and engaging in class warfare.

Do you think the indians that lived upstream from their neighboring tribe had greed as their motive when they used the stream to carry away their wastes ?

Is it greed that drives humans to seek shelter ?

Shouldn't low cost housing for its citizens be one of the primary goals of any government ?

Affordable housing should concern you.
Employment for all Americans should concern you.

Those two needs are paramount, and while we should be sensitive to the environment, foolish and/or extreme environmental applications should not impede affodable housing and employment opportunities for Americans. [/color]

News:

Jim Nugent

A.G._Crockett

Jim_Kennedy

Jerry Kluger

Jim Nugent

Pat K

Tom_Doak

Jerry Kluger

Dan King

A.G._Crockett

Lou_Duran

Dan King

Jim Nugent

Jim_Kennedy

Dan Herrmann

Jerry Kluger

Lou_Duran

Dan King

Patrick_Mucci

Dan King

A.G._Crockett

Mike_Golden

Patrick_Mucci

Craig Sweet

Patrick_Mucci