I know, but I would still try. What are they gonna do? Make you take a time-out?
You're basically their prisoner. They will physically detain you. You'll be locked in every night. If you try to do anything to deviate from the schedule, they'll force you to do otherwise. You never get to drive or fly any of the vehicles you travel in, so you have no choice as to where you go. Even if you try to do something like sit in the wrong seat, they'll just physically force you into the right one if you don't do it nicely when they ask.
And by "favorite", I mean "Fuck those assholes in Washington for letting companies dump all kinds of toxic shit into our air and then calling it the opposite."
I don't spend that much time thinking about it. I just think they should have called it something more descriptive of what it actually does, like "The Giving Use of Public Lands to Timber Companies Initiative".
I see. I suppose you think the government has their own logging teams that could be used to thin the areas? If it needs to be thinned (which usually leads to a healthier forest), then they need loggers to do it. They find that in the private sector. I just get irritated with people thinking that private logging companies doing the actual work is worse than some other alternative. It's not like the logging companies get to chose the regime that the forest is managed under...they just do what the managers tell them to. As someone who basically has a degree in forest health, I think that the resentment there is misplaced. It's really not a misleading title.
Some of the other examples are indeed misleading. This one just happens to be something I'm well-versed in, and it's a pet peeve when people complain without knowing the full situation.
We were having a conversation about this in the car, I think started with a discussion of the Patriot Act.
"How come," says Rym, "The more innocuous and nice a name of a law sounds, the more sinister it tends to be. Like a law called the 'Freedom and Puppies Act' would be about the freedom to kill puppies."
"Or that puppies are terrorists or something," says I.
"Chico's a terrorist." Alex laughs, and then when we get home we greet our neighbor's wiggly, fuzzy charge with "Oh, you little terrorist you."
I don't spend that much time thinking about it. I just think they should have called it something more descriptive of what it actually does, like "The Giving Use of Public Lands to Timber Companies Initiative".
I see. I suppose you think the government has their own logging teams that could be used to thin the areas? If it needs to be thinned (which usually leads to a healthier forest), then they need loggers to do it. They find that in the private sector.
Employee Free Choice Act - Because workers don't want a secret ballot anymore. Instead they want to be intimidated into signing cards.
That is amythused to fool the gullible and the brain-damaged.
I'm a union member. I get all of the union mail about this piece of legislation and I hear all the talk at the local union meetings.
All the unions needs is 51% of the workers to sign cards and there is no vote on unionization, it just becomes a fact. There is no reason to ever hold a secret ballot vote again.
I'll pick secret ballot over worker intimidation any day of the week.
No, right, it was Kilarney and Joe who would have the epic flame wars of Spite. I forgot. I think Kilarney's gone for good, bless his whiny little heart.
No, right, it was Kilarney and Joe who would have the epic flame wars of Spite.
I was speaking more along the lines of Joe not considering anyone around here worthy of being his nemesis
What? I'm going to consider that sarcasm. I don't consider anyone above or below anyone else here . . . except when it comes to statements like "the Employee Free Choice Act will get rid of secret ballots"m which have been disproved about a million different times.
Employee Free Choice Act - Because workers don't want a secret ballot anymore. Instead they want to be intimidated into signing cards.
That is amythused to fool the gullible and the brain-damaged.
I'm a union member. I get all of the union mail about this piece of legislation and I hear all the talk at the local union meetings.
All the unions needs is 51% of the workers to sign cards and there is no vote on unionization, it just becomes a fact. There is no reason to ever hold a secret ballot vote again.
I'll pick secret ballot over worker intimidation any day of the week.
LOL, it's the old "I heard some guys say this . . ." gambit. Hmmm . . . between "some guys" and the House Commitee on Education and Labor, I wonder which is more persuasive . . .
Generally a company or mill will pay for the rights to harvest the timber. This is how the NC Forest Service does it...they sell the timber via sealed bid. Thus they usually get a fair price for it, because companies know they won't win the bid if they bid too low, but they don't want to overbid what the timber is worth to them. This money from the sale of the timber goes into government coffers, the same way tax money does. University systems, private landowners, and state forest services do this all the time. It's the reason that timber is a good investment.
Making a national law saying we can now thin National Forests has been a long time coming, and will make them healthier and less prone to catastrophic fires. It won't prevent fire, as some people are complaining (some species need periodic fire to reproduce), but it will make them less dangerous. Yes, the mills are going to make some profit selling the wood, but that's the only way to get them to actually do the logging. If there's nothing in it for them, why bother? They can make profit selling wood from privately grown timber as well.
The point is that in general the government doesn't just open the forest up for a free-for-all. There is usually a bidding process and compensation. I could be wrong about that in this particular act, because I have not read the entire thing from front to back in detail. However, I do have a good bit of experience with how government timber sales work. And they are always to private mills or loggers. It would cost the government more to log, ship, and mill the wood themselves than the profit that the loggers/mills are making.
McCain's concession speech was graceful enough. The people in the crowd were assholes.
Yes, I respect his speech very much. I just hope his voters don't become so bitter and actually try to work together with the nation to help rebuild and fix things.
Wow, pretty impressive. I know that compared to his own crowd, all McCain would have to do is not boo Obama along with them to come off as classy, but he really went above and beyond.
I have been puzzling over a quandary that has stuck in my craw since racism and bigotry became a major part of the McCain-Palin Campaign. I can understand and accept someone that chooses to support the Republican party based on reason on specific issues. While I disagree with them or find them to be genuinely misinformed, I still can wrap my brain around them making that choice. However, when a reasonable, even tempered Republican supporter goes to a rally and hears lies that he/she knows to be lies about the other candidate, racial slurs, calls for assassinations, etc. How can they sleep at night having made these bigots their bed fellows? When that is the company you keep, wouldn't you re-think your positions or realize that nothing, no single issue is worth more than fighting against hatred, violence, small mindedness and bigotry? It is just beyond me.
If I understand you correctly, would you be asking that republicans abandon their political alignment rather than suffer having to support their candidate alongside people they detest? Even when such people make up the majority, that is a difficult moral quandary [goes to look up quandary, quandary = "a state of perplexity or doubt"].
If I understand you correctly, would you be asking that republicans abandon their political alignment rather than suffer having to support their candidate alongside people they detest? Even when such people make up the majority, that is a difficult moral quandary [goes to look up quandary, quandary = "a state of perplexity or doubt"].
For instance, a lot of McCain supporters that weren't bigots supported him over the tax issue. I can understand that (usually they don't understand how the tax structure would actually work, but they have their issue). While I could see them forbearing a few bigots here and there (every group has its evil nut-jobs), there was such a large presence of hatred that the reasonable supporters just seemed to accept. Neither the supporters nor (more importantly) the leadership took any major step to remove the hate-speak and calls for assassinations. So how do they choose taxes over being associated in a big way with bigots? How?
Here's how, I don't find the people at these McCain rallies to be a true, random sample of the McCain supporters. I think you see much more extreme viewpoints, and thus a greater cross-section of "the crazies." Most of my friends who are McCain supporters are smart, reasonable people (except the maybe the one who's afraid Obama wants his guns).
Comments
And by "favorite", I mean "Fuck those assholes in Washington for letting companies dump all kinds of toxic shit into our air and then calling it the opposite."
Some of the other examples are indeed misleading. This one just happens to be something I'm well-versed in, and it's a pet peeve when people complain without knowing the full situation.
"How come," says Rym, "The more innocuous and nice a name of a law sounds, the more sinister it tends to be. Like a law called the 'Freedom and Puppies Act' would be about the freedom to kill puppies."
"Or that puppies are terrorists or something," says I.
"Chico's a terrorist." Alex laughs, and then when we get home we greet our neighbor's wiggly, fuzzy charge with "Oh, you little terrorist you."
All the unions needs is 51% of the workers to sign cards and there is no vote on unionization, it just becomes a fact. There is no reason to ever hold a secret ballot vote again.
I'll pick secret ballot over worker intimidation any day of the week.
Making a national law saying we can now thin National Forests has been a long time coming, and will make them healthier and less prone to catastrophic fires. It won't prevent fire, as some people are complaining (some species need periodic fire to reproduce), but it will make them less dangerous. Yes, the mills are going to make some profit selling the wood, but that's the only way to get them to actually do the logging. If there's nothing in it for them, why bother? They can make profit selling wood from privately grown timber as well.
The point is that in general the government doesn't just open the forest up for a free-for-all. There is usually a bidding process and compensation. I could be wrong about that in this particular act, because I have not read the entire thing from front to back in detail. However, I do have a good bit of experience with how government timber sales work. And they are always to private mills or loggers. It would cost the government more to log, ship, and mill the wood themselves than the profit that the loggers/mills are making.