🚀 go-pugleaf

  A little environmental political theory?  A little story 
  first to illustrate Bashford's first law of environmental
  activism.  Should you go go away on vacation, your neighbor
  can bulldoze your home and build a swimming pool there.  
  Nobody will lift a finger to stop him until a complaint is 
  filed.  So it is in our forests and national lands.   
   
   Yep, Doug Bashford wrote to Ross W. Myers on 10 Sep 95  16:37:34 
 
 >Also, precisely what "damage" are these "cattlemen" causing?  Are you 
 
 M> Not long ago, I picked up a publication at a USFS ranger station
 M> in Nevada, entitled "Livestock Grazing on Western Riparian Areas".
 
 M> On the inside back cover, I found this:
 
 M> U.S. Gov't Printing Office 1991 574-018/113/241/242/243/244
 
 M> It describes in great detail the impacts of livestock grazing 
 M> in the West, citing case studies where livestock have been 
 M> removed from previously over-grazed areas -- it has plenty of 
 M> ***before and after*** pictures which are quite dramatic.  
 
 Unless something like this is seen, it is impossible to describe.

DB> Such as "dry" creeks popping out of the ground where cattle
DB> have been fenced out.   Oak trees losing their "browse line",
DB> and a zillion other things, that any fool could see at 65 mph
DB> from the road, if they knew what to look for. 
 
  Here lies a problem with the proudly ignorant, such as the
  ditto-heads.  They reject science in favor of Rush's unsupported
  arm-chair postulating as if all of reality were merely a matter of 
  (political) opinion.  They may see the changes at 65MPH, when pointed
  out to them, and even some others if they had the guts to seek out
  the publications mentioned.  
  
!!  BUT HERE IS THE KEY TO WHAT MAKES DITTOHEADS & CO TICK:   
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  
  They will still try and think to themselves that only 
  the information they are capable of personally noticing 
  (at 65 MPH?) is what is important  .  They discount every
  other word the scientist says, (discounting his long education
  and fact that the scientist is basing his conclusions on a life-
  long accumulation of information) that the dittohead cannot 
  personally verify via direct (and often mind-filtered) 
  observation.  Simple bias and dogma.
  
  This is possible in part because Limbaugh & Co
  have "prepared" their audience that science is invalid, perhaps
  a conspiracy to overthrow the American Way, or simply to grub 
  money.  Being ignorant of the gunslinger mentality of peer
  review, all the starving PhDs trying to make a name for 
  themselves, this sounds feasible.  Being ignorant of scientific
  method, they are not aware that it is designed to be operated
  by thieves and oafs and STILL yield the truth.  After all,
  science's main function is truth-seeking.  While not perfect,
  it carries the full force of all of civilization's knowledge
  of how to do this.  While not perfect, Limbaugh's unsupported 
  arm-chair postulating is in comparison; a joke.  But then he
  is a political comedian, isn't he?   Jokes and parodies
  are his stock.


 M> Although the document is written in diplomatic language
 M> so as not to hurt anybody's feelings, it really is a
 M> devastating indictment of many western grazing practices.
 
 B>  This degradation is not appreciated by the the public when they
 B>  see it because they do NOT see it.  Why?  The degraded state
 B>  is what we have been born into, that is what we assume is the
 B>  natural state.  Multi generational environmental degradation
 B>  is rarely noticed.  Does that mean it is ok?   I suppose that 
 B>  some could argue that it is.
 B>  --Douglas Bashford 
 >
 >Funny, I don't see this degradation...  ;-)
 >
 
 M> That's because you haven't seen the above publication....
 
 Chuckle....


 RE: corporate propaganda against Joe Public's interests:
DB> .  Of course, so would many with vested
DB> interests in environmental degradation.  One can can hardly
DB> blame them, that is their job, after all.  Like Duhhh!

 Yes, their job.  Simple economic theory meets reality.  It
 is not surprising, --  anything else would be surprising.  
 Logical??  True???   What is logical is often true....

DB> 
DB> Why do I feel like such such a fool when I have to point out
DB> the obvious to dittoheads?   Like pointing out the only 
DB> tactics vested interests could possibly push is some 
DB> "maniacal conspiracy theory", as they would call it?  
DB> It's dirt-obvious, 

  Yes.  Business is ONLY in business to turn a profit, not  
  for our health nor civilization's well-being.  True?  Its
  goals are short-term (1 to 10 years) while the goals of 
  civilization and the human species are long-term (20 years
  to thousands).   One need not be a Greek philosopher to
  see that sometimes conflicts may arise, and how each side
  will attempt to "win" the game.  One further point.  
  Business is well organized, and has PAC money, media
  advertising, etc.  There is little to represent human 
  civilization in these battles except education in reality.  
  
  It is business's job to demand that the public and environment 
  subsidize them.  It is Joe Public's job to either pay those 
  subsidies, or reject them.  Simple mainstream economics meets 
  reality.  Nothing sinister.  Nothing surprising.


"All that was required of them was a primitive    .---.        .------------
patriotism which could be appealed to whenever   /     \  __  /    ------
it was necessary to make them accept longer     / /     \(  )/    -----
working hours or less wealth.   And even       //////   ' \/ `   ---
when they became discontented, as they        //// / // :    : ---
sometimes did, their discontent led nowhere, // /   /  /`    '--
because, being with only Company ideas, they//          //..\\  
could only focus it on Company    =========/===========UU====UU=============
scapegoats.  The rebellious ones only fought Company   '//||\\`
enemies.  The source of these evils invariably           ''``
escaped their notice."   [Apologies to G. Orwell]    

--Douglas Bashford   

... "Unlimited optimism is a dangerous drug." : G. Hardin