🚀 go-pugleaf

James N. McClatchey (jnm@saf.com) wrote:
: donb@keystone (Don Baccus) writes:

: In a democratic society, there will always be "pressure groups" no
: matter what side of the issue you take. I know this is not the place for
: a civics lesson

I don't need the lesson, my man.

: I just say this to point out that industry is a 
: stakeholder and must be a part of the dialog.

Never said they shouldn't be.  They should stand up and say "we're
industry and this is our point of view".

What they shouldn't do is to stand up and say "we're an Independent
Policy Institue with no hidden agenda, only interested in reaching
the best scientific solution."  As it happens, that is a lie.

Problem is, they know they'll lose a fair fight.  Thus smoke-and-mirrors
"Policy Institutes", and stealth appropriations riders.

Neither approach is illegal in this country.  In my opinion, neither
approach is moral, however.

: There is always another
: side to the issue.

Please post a quote from one of my posts where I state that there is
NOT more than one side of the issue.   

I know this is not the place for a reading comprehension lesson...

: I wish you would stay away from the name-calling and
: vituperation.

The fact that the group the man posted for represents itself as
being a disinterested party, yet is actually funded by "stakeholders",
as you so trendily put it, is a fact.  Pointing out that they lie
about the goals of their organization is not "name-calling" - it is
simply stating a fact.

I didn't say "they're liars because they're an industry group."

What I said was "they're liars because they say they're NOT an
industry group."

You have a problem with that?

: In RCRA, which is a related program, the problem is that there are no
: cleanup standards. Subpart S was proposed but never adopted.

Ah yes, when in doubt obsfuscate by changing the subject.

: >: I think the wetlands issue is also foundering on injustice and unfair
: >: treatment. 

: >Oh really?  Care to be specific?  Please move beyond the laundry
: >list of horror stories which are typically trotted out and which
: >have been thoroughly debunked so many times.

: Sorry, I have only anecdotes :-). Still if there is a "taking" involved,
: and if it were your land being taken, would you not feel entitled to
: compensation? Otherwise it would be nothing more than legalized theft.
: How can this be considered just?

I live in an urban area and am comfortable with
and accustomed to the concept of zoning, which is what this "eco-take"
nonsense boils down to.  I also live in a state (Oregon) with the
strongest statewide zoning laws in the country (which we call Land
Use Planning).  I'm comfortable with that and believe it is a
just application of the principle that private property rights
are not absolute, and that the common good can take priority
over those rights, which is clear in the Constitution and
seminal US Supreme Court cases when the first zoning laws were
passed.

And, a large majority of Oregonians apparently agree, as we've
voted down three separate initiatives that would weaken those
laws.  Voted 'em down by large majorities.

Interestingly, our statewide zoning - oops, Land Use Planning
law - was pushed forward in the 1970s primarily by two activist
farmers (one who recently, and sadly, died).  At least one
of those two was a Republican, to boot, as was the Governor
who kicked the legislature until it relented and passed it.

: >And if there is injustice based on the enforcement of such laws,
: >how does this justify a political solution which rests on
: >redefining "wetland" so as to exclude the vast majority of
: >wetlands?

: I guess we dip into moral philosophy here. Law must be based on justice.

I didn't say anything about the LAW being unjust, I spoke of the
ENFORCEMENT of the law being unjust.  Unjust enforcement of the
law does not make the law itself unjust.  If there are cases of
unjust enforcement - fix the enforcement.  Though the anectdotes
I know of have been misrepresented beyond any resemblance to
the actual record.

Perhaps it is remedial reading comprehension you should sign
up for...

For instance, we've just had a case of wrongful prosecution for
the crime of murder in Portland, OR that has the DA's office
blushing - at least those convicted didn't get death.  I'd
say there's room for questioning the police methods in this
case, in their quest to enforce laws against murder.  I'd
reject the notion that we should fix the problem by renaming
murder "premature death" and using that as a pretext for
removing existing law from the books.

I reject the notion that we should fix whatever problems we
might have with wetlands law enforcement by simply reclassifying
wetlands as something else.  The motive is clear: Republicans
know that conservation laws are popular, and they hope that
by reclassifying a bunch of wetlands as something else that
they can go to the public pounding their chests saying "we're
still protecting wetlands, that pothole over there with all
those nesting avocet and stilts ain't a wetland!".

Phooey.

: What other basis can there be? I would say to those interested in wetlands
: preservation or any other environmental issue that they must come up with
: a plan that does not trample on justice.

I don't believe that rural zoning is any more unjust than urban
zoning.  

At least the Proposition 48 people in Washington got this straight:
their "takings" initiative applied to ALL zoning, urban as well as
rural, and the author made it clear he considered them equivalent.

And the voters stomped it 59%-41% yesterday.  YES!

: By being perceived as unfair, you invite the
: kind of backlash that you are complaining about.

All laws will be perceived as unfair by some folks.  It is unavoidable.

: If you are truly interested
: in environmental protection, you must hold justice and fairness as equal
: values to clean air, clean water, and productive land.

I do.  If you'd inserted the phrase "our sacred property rights" I'd
say, I do as well - to the extent they're protected by our sacred
Constitution as interpreted by the US Supreme Court, not Rush
Limbaugh and others of his ilk.
--

- Don Baccus -