Another dumb idea from the Bush administration
"Things are pretty bad when, instead of fearing that our government is lying to us, we hope that it is."-- Editorial in the Salt Lake Tribune.
Last Friday the Bush administration announced 300,000 acres of national forest (85,000 acres in California alone) that could potentially be sold to make up for logging cutbacks on public lands. This is ridiculous. Once again shithead's administration is trying to do something to benefit themselves, shocking, I know! Maybe if we wouldn't have spent all of our money fighting a war that had no point to begin with, we wouldn't need to come up with stupid proposals. The administration actually said, "In general, these are not areas used frequently by the public and valuable in terms of wildlife." Oh, so that makes it okay for us to destroy natural beauty? And if any wildlife lives there at all (and obviously there is), then it is "valuable in terms of wildlife." And what about plant life, does it mean nothing? Oh, I forgot, plants do nothing for us, so let's get rid of them. Oh wait, except for oxygen, food, medicine... but those things aren't important. Sometimes I think that Bush's goal is to destroy as much of our environment as possible before leaving office... and if that is the case, it is the only time we can actually say he is doing a good job. Bdoc, what does this mean for MT? Do they want to destroy some land there too? Yesterday was a day of love, today a day of hate, because I hate the Bush administration.
Sale of public lands proposed
Last Friday the Bush administration announced 300,000 acres of national forest (85,000 acres in California alone) that could potentially be sold to make up for logging cutbacks on public lands. This is ridiculous. Once again shithead's administration is trying to do something to benefit themselves, shocking, I know! Maybe if we wouldn't have spent all of our money fighting a war that had no point to begin with, we wouldn't need to come up with stupid proposals. The administration actually said, "In general, these are not areas used frequently by the public and valuable in terms of wildlife." Oh, so that makes it okay for us to destroy natural beauty? And if any wildlife lives there at all (and obviously there is), then it is "valuable in terms of wildlife." And what about plant life, does it mean nothing? Oh, I forgot, plants do nothing for us, so let's get rid of them. Oh wait, except for oxygen, food, medicine... but those things aren't important. Sometimes I think that Bush's goal is to destroy as much of our environment as possible before leaving office... and if that is the case, it is the only time we can actually say he is doing a good job. Bdoc, what does this mean for MT? Do they want to destroy some land there too? Yesterday was a day of love, today a day of hate, because I hate the Bush administration.
Sale of public lands proposed
Comments
I would point out though that the war was not pointless. We may not agree with the reason - but it clearly was to secure the way to continue the dual use gas/oil pipeline that Unocal is putting through Iraq.
Cutting trees and securing pipelines is all about energy. We Americans are energy gluttons, and the administration is just trying to supply our adiction.
If we stopped/limited our ways, thier actions would become pointless and may stop.
Gary
But yet, the solutions offered continue to fall on deaf ears. WHY? Because the person to whom everyone looks for examples, the one who leads the richest country in the world (rich in what? I ask), the one to whom everyone looks to lead the good fight, would rather change environmental regulations to make it easier for corporations that already make more money than GOD so he can continue to get campaign contributions and kickbacks from his supporters. He'd rather put our men and women to war to fight the battle he lied to us to begin and he continues to put our men and women to battle for the oil to which he claims the US is addicted but for which he continues to hypocritically gain profits and "favors" from the contracts he has with the devil (oil companies). He would rather cut Medicaid and Medicare so my grandmother might not be able to get the help she needs to get the care she needs in a nursing home so that he can make up for the multi-trillion dollar deficit he's broken records to build. He'd rather sell off our public resources so that he can make the corporations more rich (timber industry) and so that we can conitinue to live in our cement-paved, oil-driven, consumer-oriented society.
We have our own obligations to this world. I would bet cdoc continues to uphold her obligations though all you might read about is her frustration. This tree-hugger lives in the best way I know to leave as little trace as possible on the world except for the example I lead. But when complaints and solutions are offered that continue to fall on deaf ears, who is to blame then? Will you still stick up for this administration?