Posted on 12/30/2005 10:18:05 AM PST by yoe
So who bought the mill?
As do the private, tax-exempt "charitable" foundations of major corporate stockholders, many of whom are invested in (drum roll please) competing sources of timber from overseas.
The environmentalists will "rediscover" forest stewardship once the competition is dead and the market has consolidated in the hands of moneyed interests. The rest of us will pay through the nose, especially on the interests on the loans to purchase goods requiring large amounts of raw material at inflated prices, particularly homes.
There is an alternative. It starts with private property.
If the average Soccer Mom had to put up with the Mickey Mouse rules businesses are subjected to, there'd be a revolution in this country. The average person has no idea how onerous it is.
You need to read Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics." Everything you're saying here is little more than sententious nonsense, with emotive catch-phrases thrown in for seasoning.
Someone who is going to "flip" it to make a quick $100,000...
Yes. I agree 100%. It is interesting though that this idea of interference didn't bother anyone when it was the FDA, but they can hinder small scale food producers just as badly.
Thanks
Recently, enviro scientists announced that the owl lives in greater abundance than they estimated 20 years previous. Much greater, in fact. Those of us who make our living from forest products told them that back then.
None-the-less, no apologies for their little mistake. In fact, there is no action being taken to de-list the spotted owl from the Endangered Specicies Act listing. Why?
Environmentalists now say that the closure of the so called old growth forests has been a good move, owl or no owl.
Probably some environmentalist who will now produce "organic" lumber, sold at a premium, to finance more environmental whacko-ism.
No I don't. Sowell needs to read my book, and agrees with many of my findings, although on a rather childish level.
Everything you're saying here is little more than sententious nonsense, with emotive catch-phrases thrown in for seasoning.
Back it up. I already have.
Before the advent of the white man many of the Southern forests were ravaged by fire, insects and disease. What we now see as robust woods were patches of scrub hard wood. Only the bottom lands produced the climax forests.
It's obvious that they are only after control and imposing their wills on everyone else and not protecting any environment.
>>But this urbanization of environmental values also signals the loss of a rural way of life...<<
As is intended per Agenda 21. We may thank our United nations, local, state and federal politicians for this warped sense of sustainability.
Just for the heck of it, call your local City Manager and ask if they know about Agenda 21. The response will be, "Yes, of course I do." Then ask why these words, "Agenda 21" are never mentioned at Public Meeting of the city officials.
Do they not want the locals to know that they are operating under a global plan? No, they do not!
Where I live, fire kept the forests healthy. Logging later did the same as fire. Now that we have curtailed logging, the forests are a fire trap. That's why wilderness roads that were available for recreation are now closed.
.
It's such a shame that a great state like Montana has been infected with vermin from Mexifornia and other nearby rat producing states. The good people of the state were asleep at the switch. Come home Montana, come home.
Let me guess, SPI. One thing about environmentalists, they are hell on forests, but great for big business.
The word, "auction" in the story would imply that the mill was dismantled.
There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who "love Nature" while deploring the "artificialities" with which "Man has spoiled 'Nature.' " The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of "Nature", but beavers and their dams are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers' purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the "Naturist" reveals his hatred for his own race, i.e. his own self-hatred. In the case,of "Naturists" such self-hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate. As for me, willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. sapiens is the only race I have or can have. Fortunately for me, I like being part of a race made up of men and women, it strikes me as a fine arrangement and perfectly "natural."
ROBERT HEINLEIN
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.