🚀 go-pugleaf

rlm@helen.surfcty.com (Robert L. McMillin) writes:

>On 25 May 1994 13:15:15 PST, jpietras@netcom.com (Joseph C. Pietras) said:
>In article <jpietrasCqDn1F.GwA@netcom.com> jpietras@netcom.com (Joseph C. Pietras) writes:

>>    Write a new constitution that addresses our current reality!
>>    Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness are great - why not 
>>    add polution/chemical/Electro Magnetic Fields free environment.

>I agree that you, in particular, *should* be free from electromagnetic
>fields.  Therefore, you should be transported to a cell many hundreds
>of feet below the earth's surface, where you will be free from the
>dreadful electromagnetic radiation of the sun.  Oh, and no computers,
>electric lights, telephones, blenders, microwave ovens, electric
>stoves -- none of that, because, after all, we have a right to be free
>from e/m fields, right?

>Sheesh.  What will the Luddites think up next?

Robert,
I learned a lesson from you on this one! It was late when I wrote my
reply to the L.A. Times survey.  Once cast upon the net the bits are
out there forever (give or take several eons :-).  I should have left
it with "pollution" and let it go at that.

I never realised that intelligent people would have thought that by
using the term "Electro Magnetic Fields" I would have meant anything
other then the extremely high voltage lines - and the fields generated
by them - that some companies have placed over head in some communities.

Note that I think scientific thought is a better guide than
emotionalism when it comes to ideas of what constitutes pollution :-).
IMHO there is absolutely zero (0) danger that the Earth will be
destroyed by human pollution.  On the other hand, it is not clear
whether humans will be destroyed by pollution.  Probably not.  None the
less the existence and very negative impact on human (and other) life
on this planet by man made pollution is a fact that would be very hard
to deny.  An example is Russia.  When it existed, the USSR dumped quite
a bit of nuclear and chemical pollution on its people.  Growing up in
Western New York I observed Lake Erie and the Niagara River grow in
pollution until something was done to reverse the trend.  It surely is a
radical idea to actually put into the legal system - indeed into its
very foundations - the concept of a pollution free environment but it
is neither overkill nor underkill. The scientific reality that one can
not easily determine what is the best course of action regarding
reduction of pollution and what technologies should be employed and
which should be avoided not mean the pollution does not exist or that
it must not be controlled.

But I'm getting off the topic.  Your post showed me the error of my
ways.  I'll think a little more regarding my choice of words when I
post.

With regard to the remainder of my post I do not see any reason to
change my opinion nor did you directly address those issues.  It's
simply a fact that our democracy is over two hundred years old.  And
it *is* out of date.  Any system of government that does not take into
account human nature will fail in time.  Look at communism.  Our
current constitution and all the laws we live under do *not* take into
account human nature.  We now have a system  where - and this actually
happened - a man who commits a murder is *not* allowed by the presiding
judge to enter a plea of guilty!  Why? The judge concluded that, even
if the suspect pleaded guilty, a higher court would overturn the
conviction on the grounds that the suspect did not have adequate legal
representation. I'm sure you read the newspapers - it don't take a
genius to see that something ain't right.  Human nature is quite
diverse, some love to hate, some love to help and most just want to get
along.  Our people *are* better educated than 200+ years ago.  We know
more about life, we have far superior technology, the average person no
longer takes religious dogma as absolute fact.  The existence of the
"4th estate" can not be denied.  And people are *not* represented by
congress.  Fact: in the year 1800 there was approximately 1 congressman
for every 30,000 people.  Today the ratio is 1:650,000.  And in some
cases the congressional seat is virtually "inherited".  Case in point:
Al Gore.  He, or his father, held the same Senate seat for 48 years
(yes this is a Senate seat not House seat and you could argue the the
Senate represents the State and not the people - Gore's seat is used
because I happen to know the figures). Two other examples of careera
political familes are the Kenedys and the Browns (of Calif.).

I wrote this follow up for two reasons: 
  1) I have learned from you Robert.
     Choose words *careful* or the main point can get
     completely lost.
  2) I do not want my original idea to be lost in a debate
     over whether I am a Luddite. (Thou I must confess I
     don't know what a Luddite is - really I don't, I assume
     someone with passionate believes about the environment). 
-- 
Regards,               |
Joseph Pietras         | if it was so it might be
joseph@cerf.net        | if it were so it would be,
jpietras@netcom.com    | but, as it isn't, it ain't - that's logic!
+1.619.274.8918 Home   | 		Lewis Carrol
+1.619.274.5705 CPU    |___________________________________________



* Write to clipper.petition@cpsr.org and tell them you oppose Clipper.
* Write to cantwell@eff.org supporting HR 3627.
* Write leahy@eff.org and demand the Clinton administration explain IN
  THE SENATE why it thinks U.S. citizens shouldn't have any digital privacy.
* This is a shareware .signature  -- please pass it on!