Still though we are doing pretty well without them.
It's about time! Let's get this done before 2006 while we have the mojo.
Don't suppose anyone's thinking of including Dems in the category...
Environmentalists had a point to make sometime in the past, but their "movement" was taken over by--or, more likely, was always a movement of--silly, smug, irresponsible, self-righteous, basically sadistic, careless petty tyrants who managed to get more authority than they deserved or could handle without becoming ruthless bullies.
Here's a good rule of thumb: If the "environmentalists" are for it, oppose it. If they're against it, support it.
Julie Cart and Kenneth R. Weiss sure seem to have the Bugs and Bunny "buttons" language: mean capitalists and people who earn money. The only real humanitarians are the leeches who exist off their betters.
Well, they lie by omission. They parrot presumed benefits and never go near the costs. $20,000 per mouse? Are we compelled to stop natural processes, yes, including extinction by throwing money at it?
Just ask them, just for grins, how much they think we have thrown down the environmental bottomless pit since 1972.
$3 trillion? Five? Ten? Every cent adding to the national debt and taking away from the proper role of government: performing those necessary national tasks that we can't do individually. Let the slackers define "necessary" and they will vote themselves jobs under the guise of "environmental superiority".
Time to stop that gravy train!
"The act has become something other than recovering species. It's become a tool to stop growth, to stop mining, to stop logging. To stop a freeway from being built. It's become a tool that people are using to accomplish other goals."Yes, like empowering a bunch of bullies who otherwise would be pushing mops and slinging fries.
James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell
13 Feb. 1829Letters 4:14--15
For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.
I'm a wise-use environmentalist (I'm told the proper term is conservationist.) My goal is to make the environment on the entire planet ideal for humans. Poisoning the water, air, and soil is bad for humans, so I oppose it.
But we humans are animals (oops, I mean God's creatures) also, competing for range and resources just like every other species on the planet. If Dolphins are starving because humans are better at catching fish, I don't have a problem with that.
Wolves and Coyotes are a good example. Wolves won't share territory with humans. Coyotes will- they'll subsist on garbage and house pets if necessary. Wolves are endangered. But as a result of this adaptation, Coyotes are thriving- in harmony with humans.